DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Deshaun Watson Legal Issues cont.

Funny how that works, mine was a dick.....the good guys loved him and "bad" guys hated him.....just depends on which camp you're in.....JMHO, DW issue, the Texans "settled with ALL 30"....no wrong doing, confidential.....lawyer talk, the chicks got their money and the lawyers are smiling all the way to the bank....was justice done...it ain't about justice....it's a MONEY grab.....hope, DW settles with the remaining 4 or whatever.....none of the owners beat up to much, DW should get the NG baby....GO Browns!!!

Yes, there are no victims that file civil suits. Nobody ever gets harassed or abused. Nobody gets taken advantage of. Those seeking at least some form of justice are all scum bags and money grabbers. It must be nice to invent some fantasy world in your brain.

Define victims- lawyers abuse people all the time. They got their justice in form of money- I didn't say they were scum bags- your words. I do believe their main motivation was obtaining money from a millionaire. I'm quite rational, you seem to think your extremely smart- what's your doctorate in.

PS- Do you really think Watson will choose the Browns coaches- extremely doubtful considering a billionaire owns the team.

Define "is"... Slick Willie is that you?

Yes, Slick Willie should have been convicted of perjury. Here is a thought, since owners in collective bargaining agreement are held to a HIGHER standard than players, I wonder if the players would consider a work stoppage to get fair treatment if Watson was severely punished. No games until he is given a fair deal.
I think that would be fair indeed.....Power to the people. Not just the owners.

Yes, you made them out to be scum bags. You just didn't use those words. Don't back down now.

I am certainly not saying any of the women are scumbags without meeting them, but all of them could have very easily shut the session down and walked out.

OR could they? We don't really know any of that. It's not like they were in public. DW liked to get them alone in a private setting, like Cosby.

I have NO idea where you got scumbags out of what I posted.....I'll "standby" my opinion the women saw an opportunity to make some money off of a rich man. That has been done since the start of creation. Note: the NFL threw out one of their cases based on differing opinions- first Watson was great/decent guy, then after cases arose she changed her tune...."the ME TOO" cases. She was going to reward her son for keeping quiet. JMHO, I'm sure there were more of those types in the cases. Any masseuse making what- $40,000 a year, she gets a shot at a $250 million dollar guy.....who's in fantasy land. Money always talks.

I think that is the least realistic of all the theories that have been presented. I could see a handful, not 22. 24, 26, or 30... Am I the only one that is bothered that the number seems to keep growing? The same attorney represented 30 women against the Texans, sounds like more is on the way for DW unless there were previous settlements we don't know about, how could they not go after him too?

So are you telling me that by your standards a woman which by your description "I'll "standby" my opinion the women saw an opportunity to make some money off of a rich man. That has been done since the start of creation.", wouldn't be considered a scum bag?

And you do realize that the woman with the son you mentioned was NOT one of Buzzbee's clients in the lawsuits, correct?

In your world there must be 30 women who are all crooks trying to extort money from watson and he must be the beacon of truth. Sad, just sad.

I'm not an expert on human sexuality, nor on scum bags, nor on the massage parlor business.....check out this video-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7LNpFuQY1A, interesting what she says about American massage parlors vs the use of the word masseuse. Wonder how many of these women called themselves masseuses vs massage therapists. Hope DW isn't getting any massages other than at the Browns facility.

So women you describe as money grabbers out to extort rich men for money aren't what you consider scum bags. Mmmm hmmmmm.....

So now you're using an "I wonder" as a yet another way to undermine the women. You have no idea how you sound here. So you have zero evidence that any of these women were questionable. You have no idea if any of these buzz words were used by any of these women. Yet you just throw it out there... I mean, just because, right? Dear Lord.

I am sure if that is the case, if they were forcibly detained in some manner, I am pretty confident that would have been a issue for the grand jury and criminal charges would have been levied.

Not only did the GJ refuse to indict Watson, but the NFL has found"no evidence that Watson engaged in violence, made threats, applied coercion, or used force." OCD has admitted that his sole purpose this year is to troll others about Watson and the Browns.

Yet the claim is that in a he said/she said it's one persons word against another so that would not have made any difference.

You're doing nothing but quoting an anonymous sources opinion and nothing more.

A young woman put in a certain position, in unfamiliar high-end surroundings alone with a rich and famous man that pulls this crap would first be stunned it is happening. Her mind would race through should she go along for numerous reasons including her business future, how does she call him out safely, how is this even happening, etc., etc., etc. Being "forcibly detained" would never have to be part of the MIND SCREWING the rapey ass man puts her through. If your wife or daughter shared a limo ride with a rich dude, and he started masturbating in front of them and coming on to them like they needed to participate BECAUSE HE IS RICH AND FAMOUS while making them think things may not go well for her business, life, etc. if they don't go along, you would be okay with that? PUH-lease. None of us know the facts! I'd love to know the Browns aren't being led by THAT PERSON on Sundays so I could feel good about rooting for them like I have my whole life. If it were your wife or daughter that had been through this with you knowing it happened but never having all the facts, even from your loved ones for whatever NDA, can you really say you'd root for the man on Sundays? We both know you wouldn't. Matter of fact, you would probably want him dead.

The disconnect here is none of us know the facts or have personal relationships with any of these women. We don't know anything other than it happened, AND IT HAPPENED A LOT! It takes a pretty low morality to just brush off these women under those circumstances, IMHO. And even with this judge, she got presented with 5 cases? That makes it doubtful that she knows any more than I do about what actually happened. And after watching all the male reactions to this on here, it's easy to think that a 50% male GJ would let him off without all the facts too. Unlike those who obviously don't give a damn about the women because a stupid-ass game is more important, or stacking the deck for a Super Bowl run is more important, I just want the facts. But we are not going to get many more details because the NFL is doing its best to make it go away and sweep it under the rug.

I would have been much more willing to accept the settlements had DW not insisted he was innocent of all wrongdoing right up to the point he suddenly settled. The Texans settling so fast when they supposedly had nothing to do with it... BS. That screams coverup to me. At the very minimum, this entire situation has 'icky af' all over it. And the hell of it is the DW was highly regarded before any of this came out, said he wanted to COMPLETELY CLEAR HIS NAME, then a week later settles with a big ass check to all of them. And I get the settlement to save bit, but this doesn't sound like something a high-character guy who claims to be completely innocent would go along with or do, IMHO. The whole situation is just rapey and disgusting, both the player and the NFL look very bad to me now.

How many times have you, as a young woman, been in this situation so that we can understand how you speak for young women from personal experience.

Yet, you have called Watson a "rapey predator" dozens of times. You also said this crap that initiated peen's reply to you:

So he didn't have them come to him, in a private setting of his choosing for a massage, and then start to tug his junk trying to have sex with them? Cosby got his victims alone and drugged them, different methods to the same ends. Rich guy, private setting, unexpected sexual actions, and 'rapey' as hell.

By the way, the definition of rapey is not the same as a rapist for those who struggle with English: Rapey - sexually aggressive or inappropriate in a way that causes fear or unease."I always got a real rapey vibe from them"

Yet, I know damn well you understand English Vers, so stop acting like you don't. And yes, I want to know if he's a rapey predator, a kid with an absurd sex addiction, the target of some big money attempt to ruin him, or being gifted by an attorney and 24, 26, 30, 66... whoever knows how many women. I don't know many decent people who wouldn't want those facts to form their opinions.

You're ridiculous.

I'm not the telling people how young women respond to situations. And I am certainly not the one implying that, as a group, they would react the same way which IS ridiculous.

I have never said he did or didn't because I don't know the truth. Neither do you, but that doesn't stop you and others of pretending you know he is guilty.

It would have made a difference with the grand jury. They aren't hearing cases there. They hear evidence as presented by the prosecutor. Trust me, if there had been any, the prosecutor would have presented the evidence, and the grand just would have returned a true bill.
The DA talked to some of these people, and Buzzbee most clearly did and I don't think he ever accused any force.
You do understand what the GJ hears and why are the impaneled, right?

I've said many times that I wanted the guy to prove his innocence like he said he wanted to do, so I could feel good about rooting for him. DW, his legal team, and the NFL flipped the script on that, not me. So as you just admitted, "because I don't know the truth", is the same reason I'm not comfortable with I'm. And yes, the swing for me went against him vs. the swing for many posters going on to blame the women because they want him playing. With this number of women, that is equivalent to victim shaming or blaming
IMO. And even though you don't like it, he fits the definition of 'rapey' to a tee.

Never asked you to feel comfortable w/him. I'm just saying that I don't believe in the mob mentality of assigning guilt to those who have not been convicted of a crime in a court of law.

I get that, but you should also acknowledge that 22-30-66 women isn't a coincidence and is pretty damning in its own right, even without the facts. That's the point I refuse to simply gloss over. Add in the Texans' actions and it compounds everything else we know, regardless of the BS statement they made. Nobody really believes they just handed out a couple of million dollars to be the good guys for no reason, do they? I don't. The whole thing, including the limited info for the judge, just screams coverup and I know you are smart enough to see that.

If the NFL really wanted an indefinite suspension, she would have been given the full case reports on all of these women, and the time to delve into the individual cases would have been taken. But no, they presented 5 cherry-picked cases.

I don't get this take at all (and I know I've been throwing a lot of snark and frustration around, but right now I'm being sincere). Why would not putting up a fight at all be any more acceptable? IMO, that's WAY more of an admission of guilt than crying uncle after duking it out in the court of public opinion (IMO). Especially since you think what the Texans did is shady as hell (which I agree with).


The Florio video did bring up an interesting angle... that being that the owners might not have been aware even though their staff was enabling. I didn't think of that... that's actually pretty believable.

Im ready to move on from this crap pile. When will the NFL lady make her decision?

I am not sure. Most insiders have said the week that TC opens or the week after. They say she is not in any hurry. I think the Browns open TC on the 27th, but I'm not positive about the exact date.

I'm w/you in that i wish it would just end, but it is what it is.

She needs to hurry up! I'm with Eve... ready for the ruling to, hopefully, move on...

If you think about it, the difference between your take and my take is that they are only different angles of the same view. I was looking at the same thing from the opposite side, I completely agree with your take too. And both look shady to me.

Certainly a mob of 26 women made no impact. And you know that the NFL has no threshold of "in a court of law". Neither does a civil trial. You really need to stop with the false equivalency here.

Either it's a he said/she said case where opposing testimony means nothing or it isn't. Saying "well it is unless" makes no sense.

I'm not quite sure if this applies but I know in certain instances that if your employees cause harm or do damage it's the employer that's responsible. The standard used is that they are acting as "your agent under your employment". As such it's not the employees who are considered responsible for any damages incurred but the employer. That may be the standard used here.

It makes sense even if you don't understand what I said. Maybe you need to go back and read what I said and actually think about it for a few moments.
I will add that you need to go back and read all the comments leading up to that post. It was a continuation of thought that goes back to the conversation that led to that last comment.

Your big problem is you get in to so many skirmishes you can't keep track of a thought progression.

In a case of he said/she said, what other evidence is there except she said from the prosecutor?

Read a lot of posts, not all....the owners angle- they didn't know/ employees covered up- might work, but KRAFT- he had sex, off because cops got evidence illegally- league punishment- ZIP. My position has been women are after MONEY- I hadn't know some of the so called "facts" about DW's ways for "forcing sexual contact"- ie. he came to massages with a SMALL TOWEL covering his junk- IF true, and I don't doubt it....bottomline- if the women are "professional" they turn around and leave- they CHOSE to stay. Why- they wanted to earn MONEY. In my book, they don't get a pass for staying and being forced/ no one forced them, they KNEW right of the bat what was wanted. Most have settled for MORE MONEY, so far, four either want their day in court or want more money.....time will tell. Please don't tell me a body part scared these women- any body part. Culture sure has changed- if you told a 20 year old in the 50s the YMCA had swimming where everyone was NAKED- they'd say you're liar or stupid. Well, YMCA's had curtains separating the pool into halves- boys and girls....no woke back then....and we all swam NAKED because some couldn't afford suits for big families and there was no body shaming. We all got bodies and they shouldn't hurt anyone. Go Browns!!!

How many women made claims against Kraft?