DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Deshaun Watson Continued.....

It isn't an important distinction, its an ill-informed argument. It's also illegal to pay for an 'escort' and just happening to have sex. It is why massage parlors get closed down for this exact same thing.

https://kvia.com/news/2021/08/03/fa...e-parlor-shut-down-amid-sex-allegations/

Just top hit on google for one.

Edit: And I am pretty sure you don't want to be playing name games either. Id prefer an conversation between adults, sound good?

So you're saying there isn't the matter of intent? If you tip a bartender, you can't legally take her home after? If the intent of hiring the woman was to have sex, it was illegal. If his intent was only to get the massage, and then he was offered sex separate from the payment, it's legal.

It wasn't really a name game. Do you have a J. D.?

For there to be a crime, intent is an element that has to be "proven." Maybe they can, but then the women will also be facing potential charges. I don't think either side really wants that.

Maybe people should take a look at the total picture. Supposedly, there are 50 women that are associated with the expected massage with a happy ending with Watson. There are some that have admitted they willingly provided the service. It would appear that Watson prefers variety - I'm not sure that you could twist it any other way when you're talking about 50 plus women. This number would clearly indicate intent which from what I've seen is being pushed in the depositions. The women who are saying they provided the service as arranged without a problem are building the case for the accusers because this will show intent on Watson's part. When you have over 50 women associated with Watson and a group claims that they knew what was expected, the 22 that said "no" becomes more victimized. Unless something has changed, "no" still means "no" and IMHO is going to be the problem for Watson. The more women that give testimony that they serviced Watson will show a trend with intent. If there is let's say 30 that say they knew and serviced him as such, you can bet your bottom dollar that Watson expected the same service from the remaining 20. I think people are going to hear things that will shock them Not only from the women that serviced him with what he wanted but how he either tried too or forced the women who said "no" to do those things to him.

I don't believe this is going to go away anytime soon and will be like a dumbbell around Watson's neck on a weekly basis. With each report, hearing, or interview - the Cleveland Browns and their QB will be front page every time. Here's something everyone should keep in mind - Watson has to win every case to vindicate his name, only one of the 22 has to win to ruin him. Just one win will open up the floodgates because those who haven't filed yet will certainly file after a single win.

So far I've heard about oral and masturbation, did he have actual intercourse with any of them? Pit, I know massage therapists are supposed to be for massages only, but don't pretend men with money don't buy sex via that route. Sounds like Instagram is on its way to be a backpage/OnlyFans hybrid. I'm not sure what if anything DW actually did wrong, but he is sure as hell guilty of being a special kind of rich creep, right along with Robert Kraft. He knew damn well what he wanted when he called these women. Nobody will ever prove different. It's still too early to tell if he is also a predator, but 50+ different therapists is starting to damn sure paint that picture. Such a Browns' thing to do, give up the future to get this kid, then watch this take him down, and he never plays a snap. But what I actually think is going to happen is that DW will get his second chance after paying some kind of settlement on these cases. The whole truth will never see the light of day, and we fans will be left to trust whatever the FO puts out on him. He will play in Cleveland, and if he can keep it in his pants, he will have some success. But since we're the Browns, you have to expect him to get suspended, then do more stupid crap to get banned.

You know, it occurs to me that if Watson would have just availed himself to the massage experts that the team would have gladly provided, none of this would have happened.

With that out there, then yeah, he's an idiot. A rich athlete that felt he couldn't be touched.. (no pun intended)

So while he may or may not be guilty of any acts of violence, he's certainly guilty of being a fool...

I guess he would have used the team services more if they provided what the private session provided.

Nobody is stupid here.

Lot's of people do that and lots of massage "professionals" do that.

And then some people lump everyone into the same category when trying to excuse unforgivable behavior. It seems you think a lot of people are stupid here.

Ashley Solis, LMT

https://www.vagaro.com/ashleysolislmt

Lots do that - presumably - I agree. How many of them have 22 allegations against them of sexual misconduct / abuse?

You seem to be giving Watson a free pass because lots of people do what he may have done - while ignoring the one thing that differentiates Watson from all those other "lots of people". I don't know what happened and if Watson is innocent or not ... what I do know is dismissing it because other people get happy endings is not right.

I really hope you are just trying to be disingenuous with your argument but not actually believing it makes sense.

if you tip a bartender 10 bucks and take her out after work and have sex youre probably safe. If you tip her over $100 (unless your tab is super high) and then go have sex you may find yourself in trouble. Because "intent" is intent. The guy telling Chris Hansen that he just came to talk to the girl and just didn't want to leave the beer and condoms in the car in case they got stolen is not going to escape due to intent. Intent is the actions or knowledge and can rely on circumstantial evidence. Was the tip to the bartender reasonable or excessive, did he tip her the money and immediately have sex in the back room. Did he tip 22 bartenders and then end up with 22 sexual misconduct charges...

So your argument is that Watson sought out over a score of women for just a "massage" and ended up having sex with all of them and then they all filed charges on him but his intent was just for a massage. Which seems quite weird being that he is alleged with things from inappropriate touching to forced oral sex. It sounds like he hired women who thought THEY were just giving massages but he wanted more. That is how intent works though.

By the way, shaming the women is pretty crappy. You want to look like an idiot, that would be the way.

Here is an article discussing exactly what you were addressing......

“Deshaun Watson Has Denied He Acted Intentionally; We Believe Strongly He Did” | Two Plaintiffs Amend Lawsuit Against Browns QB

https://theshadowleague.com/deshaun...ic85DVY6d383NyqclfEOitvgGLHwPDBIG4DbiXAM

If the women wanted to have sex with DeShaun, more power to them. When did I ever say anything about shame on them?

It's when people say that DeShaun has to be "at least creepy" or deviant that I bring up the biased "logic" of gendered morality.

If you pay for a massage, and the woman started performing oral sex without your asking for it, is that solicitation? Why does it have to be DeShaun that initiated it?

Again, I'm not saying that's what happened. But, based on the evidence, it could have happened.

If they filed charges soon after the fact, I'd lean towards DeShaun initiating it. Nothing happening until long periods of time later after a lawyer gets a large group together, and I just don't know.

I just don't like it when people make assumptions without all the information. Even less when they support their arguments with nothing but surface statistics. I also think the "she's reputable, she has good reviews on the site she runs" argument (or a lousy aggregating site that pulls from her site) is similarly weak.

Ah, more questioning the moral standards of all 22 women with the plausible deniability of saying "I'm not saying that's what happened" and "it could have happened". An asteroid large enough to destroy the earth "could happen". But the probability of that happening are not a position one could take in any rational discussion.

That's why no one said anything about asteroids but you. Nice false equivalence example.

I know you don't like anyone showing you just how far you have reached to cast doubts on 22 women and attempted to use examples of everything from accusing a reputable licensed massage therapist to some back alley character. Or how their attorney must be some kind of scum bag in your depths of trying to vindicate a single man of wealth and fame. I mean if you wish to use an example of some far reacing, illogical, sweeping conclusions, both situations fit that description quite well.

It's not about vindicating Watson. It's about caring about the truth. It's about getting annoyed with people going overboard on poorly supported narratives.

A problem with your last sentence is that no one is making those conclusions.

I've presented hypotheses which can be tested against the evidence. You know, the whole scientific method. One presents a possibility and then sees if it works. Without the data, it's hard to tell. So, I keep trying to find data.

You keep assuming your conclusion is true. Your data is lacking, and you pretend that anything that doesn't support your conclusion doesn't exist.

Far fetched accusations with no viable realistic reasoning has nothing to do with scientific methods. More like some crazy conspiracy theories we see prevalent in our society today. Those two things are not the same.

The concern here for Watson is the fact he took the "5th" during his deposition. That move by him and his attorney, though perfectly legal, has now opened up pandoras box. Since two of the plaintiffs have added a claim for negligence allowing a jury to assess liability for unreasonable and imprudent conduct as well - with more coming - these claims are just another means which the jury can assess liability and damages against him. Claims of negligence and gross negligence are important because they allow for the scope of discovery to widen. A wider scope of discovery means more possible evidence to support the lawsuits can be gathered before trial, increasing damages if awarded in the plaintiff's favor.

The new negligence claims have already paid dividends in a pretrial motion this week. The attorney's plaintiffs wanted Watson to be compelled to list all women who gave him massages since 2019, other than those already documented.

Judge Rabeea Sultan Collier ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, compelling Watson to provide a history of women who gave him massages. Judge Collier also ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor stating Watson must answer questions regarding sexual activities with 18 additional therapists who came to his defense about his massage habits last year.

The attorneys for the plaintiffs are undoubtedly looking to establish a pattern of behavior with Watson and paint a picture of a man who seeks out massages from women with the intended purpose of engaging in sexual acts.

IMHO, the 22 civil claims is just the beginning because we're going to see women dragged into this thing that never had any intention of being involved. If the attorneys can establish a pattern of behavior, I suspect more women will file claims against Watson. Where they probably thought they'd just never let Watson be a client again, they are going to be identified and most likely questioned. The ugly of this situation for Watson and the Browns has just stepped up to a different level. I will be interesting to see when the fan base turns on Watson - is it with 22, or 30, or 50 civil suits? As stated in the article, one instance could possibly be misinterpreted, though unlikely. But 22? What if it's 30 or 50? That’s way too many. The legal gymnastics Watson’s attorneys will attempt during this lawsuit will be interesting.

Watson will be playing for the Browns - not totally sure when but I suspect it'll happen. My question now and has been since the beginning - AT WHAT COST?

NFL executive cites issue with Deshaun Watson contract, calls it 'desperation' move
Dan Benton, Larry Brown Sports - 7h ago

© Ken Blaze-USA TODAY Sports

The Cleveland Browns wanted quarterback Deshaun Watson, so they went out and acquired him from the Houston Texans despite 22 active civil lawsuits against him. In the process, they signed Watson to a $230 million fully guaranteed contract extension.

That’s a lot of dough and that equates to a lot of power.

Several NFL executives recently told Mike Sando of The Athletic that it may be too much power and something that could come back to bite the organization later on down the line.

“People talk about the contract precedent and what that does to the NFL, but that leaves out the simple reality that this guy (Watson) doesn’t need to listen to anybody,” an exec said. “If he wants Kevin Stefanski fired, doesn’t like the offense, whatever it is, Cleveland is stuck.”

“Giving him a fully guaranteed contract, they basically said it doesn’t matter,” another exec said. “If you are Stefanski, you are an NBA coach now.”

The lack of foresight on the Watson deal was spurred on by what many view as the impulsivity of Browns owner Jimmy Haslam.

You can't keep consistent logic for 3 consecutive sentences. One would think that "far fetched accusations" and "crazy conspiracy theories" would be the same thing.

Clearly, your logic is not to be trusted. Fortunately for Watson, your idea of what is viable and realistic, or crazy, has no bearing.

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

Probably is, but it doesn't make the reality of it any less true. We are more married to Watson as a result of that contract than absolutely anything or anyone else. Heck, that includes Haslam. Someone could come in and buy him out, but come Hell or High Water, Watson isn't going anywhere.... even if he would decide to just sit.

Just the kind of response I expected - I suppose what's happening to Watson is Baker's fault too.

And as I said that you seem to gloss over to show intent, none of that has anything to do with scientific methods.

There's nothing scientific about throwing out accusations that all 22 women must be lying.

There's nothing scientific about trying to act like a very successful attorney that has never been before the bar on any type of disciplinary action is suddenly "rounding up" a bunch of liars and not vetting them. That's tilting at windmills. You are the prime example of why women are afraid to come forward when being victimized this way. Because when they do that, people like you question their character, their honesty and the experience they were forced to endure. Well done.

And yet you posted it anyway ... Baker? Wherefore did I mention Baker?

Imagine NFL executives from other franchises being concerned with the Browns risking their future success. 🤥🙄

I didn't throw out accusations. I never said they were all lying. I presented the hypothesis that they could be lying. Then I went looking for evidence. I'm not being picky and only looking for things that will support my hypothesis and pretending everything against it doesn't exist, like you.

Apparently you think women should be afraid that people might want the truth. I'd think people should want other people to want the truth to matter. If no one can question anything, you might as well tell every potential gold digger (or lawyer looking for a payday) to have at it.

If a woman is assaulted, she should report it when the evidence is fresh. We should normalize that. Questioning isn't/shouldn't be about shaming. It should be about getting to the truth.

You don't seem interested in that. You've already concluded that Watson is guilty, so you're only looking for evidence to support that. You're paradigm bound.

You are the Don Quixote you keep alluding to. The accusers are your Dulcinea. They're women you don't really know that you've imagined into defenseless people that require your personal protection. You're the one that keeps tilting at the same sensationalized monster, based on bad arguments, while ignoring some facets of reality.

Looking for the truth isn't coming up with some far fetched theories which create a situation that makes the victims look like the predators. You aren't actually looking for the truth. You're trying to portray a picture that makes the victims the bad guys. You're using plausible deniability to dance around the the actuality of what you are doing.

It does seem very disingenuous for a man as smart as yourself to keep pretending that you don't understand why women don't report sexual crimes committed against them right away and many cases not at all. For anyone trying to use that as some sort of faux defense of Watson, not saying you are, try to educate yourself on why that is. And in part it's because of the very type of accusations you have been posting.

Why Women Don't Immediately Report Sexual Assault

Why didn’t she say something sooner?


Key points

Victims of sexual harassment and assault often delay reporting, with only one in five women reporting sexual abuse.
Sexual harassers are often in a position of power.
Victim blaming is holding victims and survivors responsible for the sexual harassment, sexual assault, or rape committed against them.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...n-dont-immediately-report-sexual-assault

Reporting these things will never be "normalized" when you have women undergoing trauma being accused of predicating the very act committed against them.

Your definition of far fetched must be different than mine, and it's obvious that you're excluding copious amounts of information with the certainty you exhibit in your conclusion. You keep insisting that the women are the victims. They could be. But, they also might not be. I'm not saying they are the bad guys. I'm saying that I don't know if there are any "good guys" in this situation.

I understand why victims don't always report crimes. Most of those victims don't brag about working on their abuser or try to schedule more appointments with them. Most don't threaten blackmail or extortion. Those claims are in writing in the case files.

I'm not victim blaming and saying it was their fault. I'm saying I don't know that assault actually happened. It may have. It may not have. Watson's lawyer is pretty good, too, and he's raised points that bring doubt into the equation.

You keep bringing up Buzbee's award. Here are Hardin's:

link

If "reporting these things" was "normalized," not "being accused of predicating the very act committed against them" would be part of "normalization." Reporting is a key step in dealing with trauma. If they're reported right away, there is more evidence that can be gathered. If they're reported right away, there wouldn't be 20-some additional alleged victims.

Just because something has been done a certain way, doesn't mean that society shouldn't try to do better.

Quoted for truth.

Wow, I expected by now this would be settled, and minds would have been changed.

This is probably something that some of you don’t want to discuss or even think about but in a worst case scenario it’s more then possible that Watson will not being able to play with the Browns in both 2022 and 2023.

The civil law suits are scheduled to be held in Mars 2023. If things go south these law suits can easily continue another year. As it stands the probability that he lose one or even several cases is more then likely. I wouldn’t bet against it with the information we have right now.

I say this again. Let these law suits go to court is the absolute worst thing he can do. The only winner in such scenario is his lawyer, everybody else has almost nothing to gain to continue.

The women will get their compensations without being publicly exposed regarding personal life a s o. That’s a win win.

Mr Happy Ending will save two years of his life’s well being by not being anxious and living in uncertainty. He can continue with his NFL career and the price for all this is maybe a few moths of his salary. That’s a slam dunk win if you ever see one.

The Cleveland Browns will have their QB ready to play form day one 2022. Win win win win win win.

The Browns supporters will see one of the best QBs in the league taking a historical underachieving organization probably to new heights. For some of you maybe pride and being right/or wrong is a better option?

The NFL don’t have to deal with sensitive questions and make a decision that will be heavily criticized whatever direction it takes.

The media will after a while drop this subject and sooner or later move on to discuss sports related topics.


It’s a win and win situation all over the place for everyone involved except his lawyer. OK, he will never be fully free from suspicions but what he has done will follow him anyway no matter what he does. If he goes to court he can easily destroy his reputation for a long long time even if he’s guilty or not. Nobody is 100% safe when a case goes to court. That’s the risk you take going to a court house proving your guilt/innocence.

So my fellow Browns supporters.

Some of you don’t agree but if it was you in this situation maybe it’s possible that some of you would think differently? Take your pick. Fight until the end and let your personal life be publicly exposed, discussed in media and maybe in the end convicted both by the court and the public opinion or ……..maybe maybe be smart and move on and accept short term public criticism and some collateral economical damage. For me the decision is easy.

As a fan of this team, I actually hope it goes to court and is as public as possible... as that's the route that gets me as much info as possible. I know that's dumb and insensitive to all that are actually involved with the case, but I want to know what I'm cheering for.

There is zero percent chance this happens. Goodell has already stated that Watson will not be put on the Commissioner's Exempt List.

Additionally, the NFL has never suspended a player based on civil suits. See Ben Roethlisberger settling his civil suit in 2012 stemming from the alleged rape in 2008 at a Lake Tahoe hotel as precedent. He was not suspended after settling the lawsuit.

I do not expect the NFL to wait until all the civil suits are either settled or thrown out. This could be years and years from now. I suspect Watson will be suspended 4-6 games and it will be announced over the summer or before training camp.

I don't see how you can suspend him with no criminal conviction or even charges, and a no resolution to any of the civil cases. The NFLPA would have a field day with that. It would be different if he was already found liable in a couple of them or he settled some. The only way i could see this happening is if they said we are suspending you 6 games period regardless of the outcome of the civil cases with no possible additional suspension related to this case. If that happens, I think he takes the 6 games then immediately starts settling

I think you need to look up the definition of copious. Your statement falls far short of the definition. One of your own points is based on what one woman reports another woman said. It seems you consider that evidence when a single woman makes an accusation about another woman but not so much when 22 women make similar accusations about one man. but not what the 22 accusers are saying. Then you try to twist an offer of an out of court settlement offer as some type of blackmail. Out of court settlements are offered in most cases, often from both sides all the time. That's not blackmail. So let's not pretend the word copious applies here.

And when it comes to the attorneys involved, once again you are either ignoring the point or purposefully avoiding the point. I'm guessing it's the latter of the two. You see, I have not brought Hardin's character or motives into question here. It's you who have brought Buzbee's up. Your claim is Buzbee takes on high profile cases is so seek fame, attention and money to himself. First let me explain something to you, Hardin is expensive. He isn't someone representing the poor here. So money is a motivator for both of them. And it's disingenuous to claim Buzbee is doing it for fame and attention while ignoring that Hardin has a huge list of famous clients which would garner the exact same results. The list includes Roger Clemens, Adrian Peterson, Joel Osteen, Rudy Tomjanovich, Warren Moon, Wade Boggs, Scottie Pippen, Dow Jones and Exxon Mobil. Hardin actually makes a point at the very beginning of his own web site about the high profile cases he has handled.

Giving one a free pass while attacking the other one for doing the exact same thing is what I've been pointing out. And it's true. Both being highly successful attorney's they have the luxury of selecting their clients and both choose high profile cases. Either the point you've been trying to make works the same for both attorney's or it applies to neither attorney. Make up your mind.

j/c

Looks like this thing may drag out for years......

None of the 22 lawsuits against Deshaun Watson will go to trial during the 2022 NFL season

The bad news is that, barring one or more settlements, the 22 civil lawsuits pending against Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson will continue to linger throughout the 2022 calendar year. The good news is that none of the cases will go to trial during the 2022 NFL season.

Via Adam Ferrise of the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the lawyers handling the cases have agreed that no trials will be scheduled between August 1, 2022 and March 1, 2023.

Tony Buzbee, who represents the 22 plaintiffs, told the Plain Dealer that he hopes to get a trial set for July. If that isn’t feasible, he hopes to have all 22 cases ready to go in March 2023.

Lingering over the entire controversy is the question of whether the case proceeds with one trial involving all claims or 22 different trials. We’ve previously gotten the sense from talking to persons with knowledge of the litigation that the cases would be tried one at a time. For 22 trials, that could take most if not all of the 2023 offseason, with one case after another after another after another.

At some point, Watson needs to focus on settling specific cases. A deal could have been had for 18 of the claims last October, with four holdouts. Watson didn’t want to settle some but not all of the claims. Whether he should have felt differently at the time, he should reconsider that position now, settling every case he can in order to whittle the litigation down to as few cases as possible.

It’s not good for Watson, the Browns, the NFL, or Cleveland fans to have this situation linger. The sooner it’s resolved, the better. It’s looking like, barring settlements, the controversy will still be lingering a year from now.

The best approach would be to find a retired judge with the skills, the savvy, and the gravitas to get all parties in a room, and to start clunking the attorneys’ heads together until all of the cases are resolved to the satisfaction of the 22 plaintiffs and Watson.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.c...-go-to-trial-during-the-2022-nfl-season/

If the part in bold actually plays out this way, it's not good news for watson. Convincing a jury you aren't guilty when you have 22 accusers all testifying at the same time would be overwhelming to a jury. His best option would be to have 22 separate trials and somehow keeping it to a single victim testifying at each trial. The chances of convincing a jury in a one on one scenario would be much easier to do if you can undermine the victims characters enough. Although actually accomplishing that 22 times isn't something rational people believe will happen.

NFL Personal Conduct policy allows for it, and the NFLPA will go along with it. It doesn't really require anything more than the Commissioner's decree. Even if the NFLPA protested it, which would be an utterly stupid P.R. move on their part, they can only lodge a complaint/protest, it still comes down the Commish.

There is enough smoke to assume a reasonable chance of a fire here, and that's all that is needed. Had he been conducting himself better, he would not have been doing things that potentially reflect poorly on himself, the NFL, and the NFLPA. I fully expect Goodell to take a stance such as "6 games minimum, further suspensions possible based on any future information that comes out"... and, simultaneously, I expect the league and NFLPA to actively work to repair public opinion and his image while hoping this all fades away quickly, because, let's be honest, the NFL and the NFLPA don't give one little damn about what he did or didn't do. They ONLY care about how it impacts public perception, and thus revenues. It's like Michael Vick where the NFL waged a very active campaign to boost his image when his prison release date was approaching because there were already plans in the works to get him back on the field because he was a marketing dream. Watson is in much the same boat. He represents money, so the league will do whatever they need to give the appearance that "we care about #metoo and the voices of women", then they will get him back on the field selling tickets, concessions, and jerseys.