Jump to content

AB accused for 3 instances of sexual assualt & rape against 1 woman. Lawsuit filed against him


Recommended Posts

Posted

I don't believe that Antonio Brown would contact someone 4 years later. He is famous and has money, what would prompt him to remember her? It makes more sense that she would contact him. So if she's lying about that...

 

Given the two stories, Brown's version of invents sounds a lot more credible. The only reason her story can be considered reasonable, is only because of Brown's recent antics. 

 

I am absolutely positive that she only came forward now, because everyone was treating Brown like a crazy person, so her story would sound more believable. (this fact would not preclude innocence or guilt, only that it was good timing.)

 

In my opinion, this may be an instance of regret after the fact, especially with her upcoming marriage. She may have found a man that finally treats her right, and realized that the behavior of previous boyfriend's (Brown) was actually assault.

 

 

 

 

Posted
7 minutes ago, PlayoffsPlease said:

 

If your opinion is based on only what is published in the media, and not on personal knowledge, however it is probably not an opinion you should expect others to respect. 

WTF do you think that this place, and life is full of? Drop the piety act and join the real world.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

I’d have to look into it more... probable cause for search warrants make sense, even for arrest to some extent because arrest’s have like a 3 day shelf life before they have to present evidence to the GJ, I just don’t see how PC can be used to indict as it’s not evidence. 

 

Swerving while driving is probably cause to pull someone over, but it isn’t proof they were drinking and driving. 

 

The smell of marijuana is probably cause to search an apartment, but it isn’t evidence that there’s illegal possession.

 

A bomb dog alerting to a persons backpack is probably cause to search the backpack, but short of finding anything in the bag, what charge is there?

 

In the instances you gave I believe the standard you're referring to is a 'reasonable suspicion', which is a lower standard of proof than probable cause. 

Posted
11 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Nah, the whole presumption of innocence thing only meaningfully applies to parties involved in legal proceedings. 

So, it is an ok thing for us to talk about here? I don’t want to break any posting laws and have the thread police come after me.

Posted
1 minute ago, Cripple Creek said:

WTF do you think that this place, and life is full of? Drop the piety act and join the real world.

with responses like this your random opinion of someones guilty or innocence is sure to be highly respected.  

Posted
14 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said:

I don't know about you but I assemble a makeshift grand jury in my house and if they decide I have enough information to form an opinion I go with it. But not before.

That is a reasonable level of proof to me. I’m going to go with that. (Are pets suitable jurors in this instance?)

  • Haha (+1) 2
Posted
1 minute ago, Cripple Creek said:

So, it is an ok thing for us to talk about here? I don’t want to break any posting laws and have the thread police come after me.

 

I'll allow it

Posted
18 minutes ago, starrymessenger said:

 

Testimony alone, or testimony together with circumstantial evidence? I would be surprised if a plaintiff's assertion could by itself suffice under any circumstances, assuming a general denial by the accused, but I don't know about criminal law and stand to be corrected.

 

I think SectionC3 is talking about what is sufficient under the law, not what is likely to be accepted as "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" in the courtroom by a modern jury.

 

Posted
15 minutes ago, starrymessenger said:

 

Testimony alone, or testimony together with circumstantial evidence? I would be surprised if a plaintiff's assertion could by itself suffice under any circumstances, assuming a general denial by the accused, but I don't know about criminal law and stand to be corrected.

 

I think you’re looking for “corroborating” instead of “circumstantial.”  E.g., evidence of physical trauma to the victim would be direct evidence of the rape and corroborate a victim’s testimony as to a rape.  

 

The corroborating evidence rule applies to accomplice testimony and confessions.  Testimony of a victim, standing alone, is legally sufficient to convict in a sexual abuse/sexual assault case.  That said, prosecutors are disinclined to bring a case to a grand jury (other than perhaps a child sexual abuse case) in the absence of corroborating evidence.  

 

So, technically, this case could be brought on the testimony of the victim alone.  But I don’t think that will be an issue because we have the text message exchanges that corroborate at least the contention that sexual intercourse occurred.  How that effects the forcible penetration element of the crime lies in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Cripple Creek said:

That is a reasonable level of proof to me. I’m going to go with that. (Are pets suitable jurors in this instance?)

Smart ones, which are the only kind I have. Parrots excel in this role.

Posted
30 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

It's offensive that such a large segment of society has such little regard for the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

 

Too many people are quick to take punitive action against people before having enough information to form a rational opinion.

 

What if I just think Brown is an a--hole and want to see him suffer?

Posted

Just checking in to see if the armchair lawyers and psychics have reported for duty. They have. Carry on. 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I think SectionC3 is talking about what is sufficient under the law, not what is likely to be accepted as "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" in the courtroom by a modern jury.

 

 

 

They’re related concepts.  A charge can’t proceed to a jury unless there is legally sufficient evidence to support the conviction of that crime, e.g., a certain threshold of evidence that establishes that the jury COULD convict of the charge.  Whether to convict of the crime based on that evidence, namely, whether the burden of proof has been met, is a concept that generally is referred to as the “weight of the evidence.”  “Weight,” in basic terms, speaks to the jury’s evaluation of the evidence and whether the trier of fact SHOULD HAVE convicted based on that proof.   

 

 

Just now, dubs said:

Just checking in to see if the armchair lawyers and psychics have reported for duty. They have. Carry on. 

 

No armchair here. 

Posted
Just now, KD in CA said:

What if I just think Brown is an a--hole and want to see him suffer?

 

You'd be better off to break into his house and hide raw shrimp in his curtain rods. 

I think Brown likely has a "camp" that exists to insulate him from this kind of thing.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...