Anybody claiming it wasn't sexual assault needs to have an unwanted stranger's erection suddenly exposed and drug across their forehead. Then they can decide if that felt sexual assault-ish enough for them.
Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
Honest question bro. How many women said he placed his penis on them?
You would have to ask Robinson. What I did was provide what the NFL set as a guideline to constitute sexual assault and the she found him guilty by those guidelines. How many women would he have had to have done that to in order for you to agree he was guilty of sexual assault?
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Honest question bro. How many women said he placed his penis on them?
You would have to ask Robinson. What I did was provide what the NFL set as a guideline to constitute sexual assault and the she found him guilty by those guidelines. How many women would he have had to have done that to in order for you to agree he was guilty of sexual assault?
All I did was ask a simple question. yet for some strange reason none of you can answer it. Why didn't anybody answer my question???
Honest question bro. How many women said he placed his penis on them?
You would have to ask Robinson. What I did was provide what the NFL set as a guideline to constitute sexual assault and the she found him guilty by those guidelines. How many women would he have had to have done that to in order for you to agree he was guilty of sexual assault?
I think what a lot of people are having trouble with is that they are defining it as sexual assault but then saying it was non-violent. I don't think I'm alone in that when I hear the word "assault" I think violent acts. I also think that is part of what Robinson was pointing to in their definition. She pointed to previous cases and even stated succinctly that she was comparing him to previous non-violent sexual misconducts.
One thing I don't like about the process, is the lack of actual evidence. She takes the testimony of the NFL investigators as true, but what if Watson's lawyers said they interviewed the same women and that they said something totally opposite? I don't mean this to say that I think Watson is innocent, just a flaw in the process from my standpoint.
Honest question bro. How many women said he placed his penis on them?
You would have to ask Robinson. What I did was provide what the NFL set as a guideline to constitute sexual assault and the she found him guilty by those guidelines. How many women would he have had to have done that to in order for you to agree he was guilty of sexual assault?
All I did was ask a simple question. yet for some strange reason none of you can answer it. Why didn't anybody answer my question???
I did answer your question. I don't know how many cases that applies to. I'm not Sue Robinson. I didn't review the four cases so I have no way of knowing. I do know that in the cases she heard she found on more than one occasion “unwanted sexual contact with another person.” That was in her report. So yes, I did answer your question. My answer is a simple one. I didn't see or hear the testimony so I have no way of knowing the answer. It was however found to be true.
So now are you going to answer my question?
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Honest question bro. How many women said he placed his penis on them?
You would have to ask Robinson. What I did was provide what the NFL set as a guideline to constitute sexual assault and the she found him guilty by those guidelines. How many women would he have had to have done that to in order for you to agree he was guilty of sexual assault?
All I did was ask a simple question. yet for some strange reason none of you can answer it. Why didn't anybody answer my question???
I did answer your question. I don't know how many cases that applies to. I'm not Sue Robinson. I didn't review the four cases so I have no way of knowing. I do know that in the cases she heard she found on more than one occasion “unwanted sexual contact with another person.” That was in her report. So yes, I did answer your question. My answer is a simple one. I didn't see or hear the testimony so I have no way of knowing the answer. It was however found to be true.
So now are you going to answer my question?
No Bro you didn't answer my question. DW could be as guilty as you say he is... I have no idea. Yet nobody can or will answer my question because they don't know. I don't know, you, don't know nobody knows. That's the part I have trouble with.
How many women would he have had to have done that to in order for you to agree he was guilty of sexual assault?
ONE to answer your question. Just give me proof of one and I will agree with you on that one. However when people say he is guilty in all with zero proof, then I have a problem
idk GM, but how many does it take to be considered assault? The report clearly stated that it happened. That is good enough for me.
BULL It didn't say that quit making chit up.
When he turned over on his back, it is alleged that Mr. Watson exposed his erect penis and purposefully contacted the therapists’ hands and arms multiple times with his erect penis.
Page 5 2nd Paragraph 3rd Line
One of the therapists alleges that Mr. Watson not only contacted her arm multiple times, but that he ejaculated on her arm.
Page 5 2nd Paragraph 5th line
Mr. Watson has not testified that he had erections and inadvertently touched the therapists here; instead, he has categorically denied the allegations against him, including that he ever developed an erection during a massage.24 It is difficult to give weight to a complete denial when weighed against the credible testimony of the investigators who interviewed the therapists and other third parties. 25 Moreover, the totality of the evidence (including the undisputed facts relating to Mr. Watson’s use of towels, his focus points, and the not uncommon experience of massage therapists to have contact with the erect penis of their male clients) lends support to my conclusion that it is more probable than not that Mr. Watson did have erections and that his erect penis contacted the therapists as claimed by them.
idk GM, but how many does it take to be considered assault? The report clearly stated that it happened. That is good enough for me.
BULL It didn't say that quit making chit up.
When he turned over on his back, it is alleged that Mr. Watson exposed his erect penis and purposefully contacted the therapists’ hands and arms multiple times with his erect penis.
Page 5 2nd Paragraph 3rd Line
One of the therapists alleges that Mr. Watson not only contacted her arm multiple times, but that he ejaculated on her arm.
Page 5 2nd Paragraph 5th line
Mr. Watson has not testified that he had erections and inadvertently touched the therapists here; instead, he has categorically denied the allegations against him, including that he ever developed an erection during a massage.24 It is difficult to give weight to a complete denial when weighed against the credible testimony of the investigators who interviewed the therapists and other third parties. 25 Moreover, the totality of the evidence (including the undisputed facts relating to Mr. Watson’s use of towels, his focus points, and the not uncommon experience of massage therapists to have contact with the erect penis of their male clients) lends support to my conclusion that it is more probable than not that Mr. Watson did have erections and that his erect penis contacted the therapists as claimed by them.
Page 7 Paragraph 2
Yet you post a she said he said. ZERO proof either way... which is what I have been saying. Two grand juries, Sue spending forever looking at the case and sill ZERO proof. Give me proof and I am all in. Make up things in your own mind and I say screw that. Give me proof. and I will agree with you 110 percent.
I think what a lot of people are having trouble with is that they are defining it as sexual assault but then saying it was non-violent. I don't think I'm alone in that when I hear the word "assault" I think violent acts. I also think that is part of what Robinson was pointing to in their definition. She pointed to previous cases and even stated succinctly that she was comparing him to previous non-violent sexual misconducts.
I understand that. But that is based on "feelings and thoughts" and not based in facts. Let me give you an obvious example which I've pointed out before.
Quote
Is spitting a type of assault?
It may be that the "spitter" had no intention to break the law or hurt the person he spit on (or at), but because spitting on someone can be considered an application of force, i.e, making contact with another person in an offensive manner, it qualifies as a simple assault.
While spitting on someone is not considered an assault everywhere, it is in many states and jurisdictions. I understand that people have a certain perception in their minds but that doesn't change the reality of it This plainly points out that "making contact with another person in an offensive manner, it qualifies as a simple assault."
Quote
One thing I don't like about the process, is the lack of actual evidence. She takes the testimony of the NFL investigators as true, but what if Watson's lawyers said they interviewed the same women and that they said something totally opposite? I don't mean this to say that I think Watson is innocent, just a flaw in the process from my standpoint.
In anything less than a criminal court, the job of the judge is to listen to testimony from both sides. Look at all the evidence presented to them from both sides and make the decision of who is credible and who isn't. That was the process used in this hearing. Even watson's most avid supporters said that she was well qualified for the job. As such she based her decision on the evidence. Obviously it was quite clear to her who was credible and who was not.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
idk GM, but how many does it take to be considered assault? The report clearly stated that it happened. That is good enough for me.
BULL It didn't say that quit making chit up.
Quote
Mr. Watson has not testified that he had erections and inadvertently touched the therapists here; instead, he has categorically denied the allegations against him, including that he ever developed an erection during a massage.24 It is difficult to give weight to a complete denial when weighed against the credible testimony of the investigators who interviewed the therapists and other third parties.
25 Moreover, the totality of the evidence (including the undisputed facts relating to Mr. Watson’s use of towels, his focus points, and the not uncommon experience of massage therapists to have contact with the erect penis of their male clients) lends support to my conclusion that it is more probable than not that Mr. Watson did have erections and that his erect penis contacted the therapists as claimed by them. 26
Maybe you should read the report. And nobody can give you the number of women that claimed it because as far as I know, that info is not available.
Last edited by OldColdDawg; 08/02/2204:28 PM.
Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
idk GM, but how many does it take to be considered assault? The report clearly stated that it happened. That is good enough for me.
BULL It didn't say that quit making chit up.
When he turned over on his back, it is alleged that Mr. Watson exposed his erect penis and purposefully contacted the therapists’ hands and arms multiple times with his erect penis.
Page 5 2nd Paragraph 3rd Line
One of the therapists alleges that Mr. Watson not only contacted her arm multiple times, but that he ejaculated on her arm.
Page 5 2nd Paragraph 5th line
Mr. Watson has not testified that he had erections and inadvertently touched the therapists here; instead, he has categorically denied the allegations against him, including that he ever developed an erection during a massage.24 It is difficult to give weight to a complete denial when weighed against the credible testimony of the investigators who interviewed the therapists and other third parties. 25 Moreover, the totality of the evidence (including the undisputed facts relating to Mr. Watson’s use of towels, his focus points, and the not uncommon experience of massage therapists to have contact with the erect penis of their male clients) lends support to my conclusion that it is more probable than not that Mr. Watson did have erections and that his erect penis contacted the therapists as claimed by them.
Page 7 Paragraph 2
Yet you post a she said he said. ZERO proof either way... which is what I have been saying. Two grand juries, Sue spending forever looking at the case and sill ZERO proof. Give me proof and I am all in. Make up things in your own mind and I say screw that. Give me proof. and I will agree with you 110 percent.
So your stance is the process with a Judge was valid to not indict him but the process with the Judge that found him at fault was flawed?
You don't want proof, you want excuses to not believe.
idk GM, but how many does it take to be considered assault? The report clearly stated that it happened. That is good enough for me.
BULL It didn't say that quit making chit up.
Quote
Mr. Watson has not testified that he had erections and inadvertently touched the therapists here; instead, he has categorically denied the allegations against him, including that he ever developed an erection during a massage.24 It is difficult to give weight to a complete denial when weighed against the credible testimony of the investigators who interviewed the therapists and other third parties.
25 Moreover, the totality of the evidence (including the undisputed facts relating to Mr. Watson’s use of towels, his focus points, and the not uncommon experience of massage therapists to have contact with the erect penis of their male clients) lends support to my conclusion that it is more probable than not that Mr. Watson did have erections and that his erect penis contacted the therapists as claimed by them. 26
idk GM, but how many does it take to be considered assault? The report clearly stated that it happened. That is good enough for me.
BULL It didn't say that quit making chit up.
When he turned over on his back, it is alleged that Mr. Watson exposed his erect penis and purposefully contacted the therapists’ hands and arms multiple times with his erect penis.
Page 5 2nd Paragraph 3rd Line
One of the therapists alleges that Mr. Watson not only contacted her arm multiple times, but that he ejaculated on her arm.
Page 5 2nd Paragraph 5th line
Mr. Watson has not testified that he had erections and inadvertently touched the therapists here; instead, he has categorically denied the allegations against him, including that he ever developed an erection during a massage.24 It is difficult to give weight to a complete denial when weighed against the credible testimony of the investigators who interviewed the therapists and other third parties. 25 Moreover, the totality of the evidence (including the undisputed facts relating to Mr. Watson’s use of towels, his focus points, and the not uncommon experience of massage therapists to have contact with the erect penis of their male clients) lends support to my conclusion that it is more probable than not that Mr. Watson did have erections and that his erect penis contacted the therapists as claimed by them.
Page 7 Paragraph 2
Yet you post a she said he said. ZERO proof either way... which is what I have been saying. Two grand juries, Sue spending forever looking at the case and sill ZERO proof. Give me proof and I am all in. Make up things in your own mind and I say screw that. Give me proof. and I will agree with you 110 percent.
So your stance is the process with a Judge was valid to not indict him but the process with the Judge that found him at fault was flawed?
You don't want proof, you want excuses to not believe.
I make no claims... you do... yet you can't back up your claims. Look in the mirror bro.
If the findings of an independent judge does not convince you, nothing will. It appears you intend to dispute Sue Robinson's conclusion to continue on your path of denial.
From page 7 of her report....
Quote
parties.25 Moreover, the totality of the evidence (including the undisputed facts relating to Mr. Watson’s use of towels, his focus points, and the not uncommon experience of massage therapists to have contact with the erect penis of their male clients) lends support to my conclusion that it is more probable than not that Mr. Watson did have erections and that his erect penis contacted the therapists as claimed by them.26
Now you have stepped it up a notch by disputing a judges finding. So be it.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
idk GM, but how many does it take to be considered assault? The report clearly stated that it happened. That is good enough for me.
BULL It didn't say that quit making chit up.
Quote
Mr. Watson has not testified that he had erections and inadvertently touched the therapists here; instead, he has categorically denied the allegations against him, including that he ever developed an erection during a massage.24 It is difficult to give weight to a complete denial when weighed against the credible testimony of the investigators who interviewed the therapists and other third parties.
25 Moreover, the totality of the evidence (including the undisputed facts relating to Mr. Watson’s use of towels, his focus points, and the not uncommon experience of massage therapists to have contact with the erect penis of their male clients) lends support to my conclusion that it is more probable than not that Mr. Watson did have erections and that his erect penis contacted the therapists as claimed by them. 26
Maybe you should read the report.
I read it all why didn't you?
I did read it all, a couple of times. I just quoted for you the part that says they claimed it. I made edits to my post that you probably didn't see, but I both answered your question and brought the receipts, so that is that.
Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
Not for nothing, but Sue's interpretation of the evidence she saw is probably the best we're gonna get.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
Bottom line is the evidence presented convinced Judge Robinson that "Watson did it." Watson lied to the Judge, shows no remorse, has been deemed a predator, and sexually assaulted the women per the NFL guidelines. So, six weeks of suspension (unless appealed) and Watson will become the face of the franchise after sexually assaulting 25 or more women. With every snap Watson plays going forward the NFL and more importantly the Cleveland Browns will be condoning the actions of a man who has shown no remorse for the women he assaulted. This is a sad day for Cleveland and the NFL. Obviously, winning football games has a higher priority for the Browns than sexually assaulted women by their player.
It seems odd that on a Browns message board, posters get ridiculed for wanting actual tangible proof for the allegations and those that assign guilt on hearsay and bash the Browns on almost every single post they make are not even questioned.
I understand what GM is saying. He isn't saying Watson is innocent. What he is saying is that there is no actual proof. It's the word of four separate witnesses vs his. She made a ruling and I am fine w/that ruling. She did the best she could. But the only people who really know the truth are the actual participants. There is not any video evidence. No medical reports. No eye witnesses. No physical evidence. The ruling is based on what the four women had to say vs what Watson said. And once again...........this was NOT a legal trial. It was a hearing to see if Watson violated the terms of The Personal Conduct Policy. Those claiming this proves his guilt are the same people who have said he was guilty as soon as we made the trade. The truth is not what they seek. They are fueled by the need to force their opinions down the throats of others.
idk GM, but how many does it take to be considered assault? The report clearly stated that it happened. That is good enough for me.
BULL It didn't say that quit making chit up.
Quote
Mr. Watson has not testified that he had erections and inadvertently touched the therapists here; instead, he has categorically denied the allegations against him, including that he ever developed an erection during a massage.24 It is difficult to give weight to a complete denial when weighed against the credible testimony of the investigators who interviewed the therapists and other third parties.
25 Moreover, the totality of the evidence (including the undisputed facts relating to Mr. Watson’s use of towels, his focus points, and the not uncommon experience of massage therapists to have contact with the erect penis of their male clients) lends support to my conclusion that it is more probable than not that Mr. Watson did have erections and that his erect penis contacted the therapists as claimed by them. 26
Maybe you should read the report. And nobody can give you the number of women that claimed it because as far as I know, that info is not available.
Yet some folks around here quote it as FACT when it's not. I have said around here several times that they could be right, they could be wrong, or that the truth is in the middle yet many of you start crying that he is guilty 110 percent with no proof. You need only look in the mirror to see who is being honest, and it ain't you bro.
The only thing I don't get in all that is the remorse part. How is he supposed to show remorse with ongoing civil suits? Or was he supposed to throw money at the "problem" and settle straightaway (because that's so much better)?
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
You do know what their definition of sexual assault was in this case, right? Or don't you?
Quote
“unwanted sexual contact with another person.”
How much further than that do you feel it needs to go to be called sexual assault? Are you trying to say that purposefully placing your penis on a woman when it is unwanted isn't enough for you?
All she is doing is referring you to what her rulings are based on. Each of those are spelled out clearly in the decision. This wasn't a state or local court. So what the rules/laws and their definitions had to come from somewhere and as a judge or attorney you have to show where and what you are basing your ruling on. That's exactly what she did here.
Per example, in an actual criminal trial the judge would say something similar to this, "based on Ohio statute 3.145 the court rules...."
WTH?
You can take your tired-ass goalposts and shove 'em. I've said NOTHING on how I think sexual assault should be judged.
All I stated is what Robinson exposed over and over in her brief. She's working within an environment with a bunch of ambiguities, the NFL defines all the language on the fly and expects her to leap of the edge and approve unprecedented punishment.
You want to take that, and accost me with stupid penis questions? GTHOH.
I've never done anything to excuse Watson's behavior. My commentary is on how the case was judged and the lunacy that is NFL protocol and practice. Take your virtue-signaling ass on down the road.
If the findings of an independent judge does not convince you, nothing will. It appears you intend to dispute Sue Robinson's conclusion to continue on your path of denial.
From page 7 of her report....
Quote
parties.25 Moreover, the totality of the evidence (including the undisputed facts relating to Mr. Watson’s use of towels, his focus points, and the not uncommon experience of massage therapists to have contact with the erect penis of their male clients) lends support to my conclusion that it is more probable than not that Mr. Watson did have erections and that his erect penis contacted the therapists as claimed by them.26
Now you have stepped it up a notch by disputing a judges finding. So be it.
NO your making chit up. Point out one time I ever complained about her. Point out one single time I said she was wrong. You can't. Because I didn't. You and some others are so intent of proving Watson guilty that you won't take a honest look at whats going on. I have, and I admit 100 percent that he could be guilty, innocent, or somewhere in between which is where I stand. Not that he is innocent of everything, but that he is not guilty of everything. Yet I get bashed by the he is a skumbag, worthless piece of crap crowd.
It seems odd that on a Browns message board, posters get ridiculed for wanting actual tangible proof for the allegations and those that assign guilt on hearsay and bash the Browns on almost every single post they make are not even questioned.
Says the man who claimed he would accept her findings. Until suddenly he didn't like her findings. Now he points the finger in the other direction. Color me shocked.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
idk GM, but how many does it take to be considered assault? The report clearly stated that it happened. That is good enough for me.
BULL It didn't say that quit making chit up.
Quote
Mr. Watson has not testified that he had erections and inadvertently touched the therapists here; instead, he has categorically denied the allegations against him, including that he ever developed an erection during a massage.24 It is difficult to give weight to a complete denial when weighed against the credible testimony of the investigators who interviewed the therapists and other third parties.
25 Moreover, the totality of the evidence (including the undisputed facts relating to Mr. Watson’s use of towels, his focus points, and the not uncommon experience of massage therapists to have contact with the erect penis of their male clients) lends support to my conclusion that it is more probable than not that Mr. Watson did have erections and that his erect penis contacted the therapists as claimed by them. 26
Maybe you should read the report. And nobody can give you the number of women that claimed it because as far as I know, that info is not available.
Yet some folks around here quote it as FACT when it's not. I have said around here several times that they could be right, they could be wrong, or that the truth is in the middle yet many of you start crying that he is guilty 110 percent with no proof. You need only look in the mirror to see who is being honest, and it ain't you bro.
Well, I get that. But this isn't truly a "he said she said". This is a "he said, THEY said". And in her report, the preponderance of the evidence made her side with the women's claim it happened as they claimed. She found DW's denial of any wrongdoing, not credible. It's not that hard to understand. Lacking any further evidence to the contrary, this is now the official story as far as football is concerned.
Last edited by OldColdDawg; 08/02/2204:53 PM.
Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
I'm pointing out how you refuse to admit her findings are correct and don't consider that evidence. I'm sorry there are no 8x10 color glossies or video tape for you to review.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
What is funny as hell is that nobody answered my question. All they did was bash me for not agreeing with them. Anybody with a IQ over 50 can see that.
You and some others are so intent of proving Watson guilty that you won't take a honest look at whats going on.
Mr. Watson is hereby suspended for six (6) regular-season games without pay. Although this is the most significant punishment ever imposed on an NFL player for allegations of non-violent sexual conduct, Mr. Watson’s pattern of conduct is more egregious than any before reviewed by the NFL. • Recognizing that the only discipline mentioned in the CBA is a fine or suspension,53 I nevertheless believe it appropriate for Mr. Watson to limit his massage therapy to Clubdirected sessions and Club-approved massage therapists for the duration of his career, and so impose this mandate as a condition to his reinstatement. • Mr. Watson is to have no adverse involvement with law enforcement, and must not commit any additional violations of the Policy.
What is funny as hell is that nobody answered my question. All they did was bash me for not agreeing with them. Anybody with a IQ over 50 can see that.
Pretty sure I answered it, and I don't think I bashed you either. Asking if you even read it is not bashing GM, but take it however you want, I don't really care.
Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
I'm pointing out how you refuse to admit her findings are correct and don't consider that evidence. I'm sorry there are no 8x10 color glossies or video tape for you to review.
Point out one single time I ever said her findings were not correct.
