DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum watson-suspended-6-games 2

The NFL and Texas have different definitions of sexual assault

Bottom line - you don't know if he coerced women into sexual activity involving penetration or not. Posters said they would live by the ruling by Sue Robinson. Here's some of what she said -

Involving accusations of Sexual Misconduct and Assault per the NFL's policy - Watson is guilty.
His actions were more egregious than ANY other case before the NFL.
He lied and continues to lie about what happened.
He acted in a predatory fashion regarding these sexual assaults/misconduct ... people are trying to split hairs - but if you act like a predator while committing sexual transgressions that makes you a sexual predator.

There's more to what she said - but this is sort of the crux of the issues for me. DW was not the victim of a witch hunt - the women were not all lying - this wasn't some invention of the Cleveland Media and fan base.

No wonder many want to gloss over or ignore completely the details and want to pretend like 6 games and this ruling is what they expected and we should all move on and talk about something different. No wonder so many are name calling and trying so hard to shout down anyone still talking about what Watson ha done and what it means moving forward.

j/c:

A couple of things.

--Not sure why Texas law has to do w/the NFL?

--Several posters who have mentioned their daughters and/or wives. My wife is a Steeler fan and has had very little to say about Watson. My daughter is a huge Browns fan. Both my wife and daughter are strong advocates for women. Before my daughter and her husband opened up their business, she was a physical therapist. She often lamented about how women had a much tougher path to the top in her field. She is an active member in several women's rights groups and charities. She was a bit uncomfortable when we first signed Watson, but has changed her tune as more information came out. She texted our group after the news of Watson's suspension and was satisfied w/it. I texted back about the NFL appealing. Her immediate reaction was: "So they put a female in charge of discipline and she is a former judge, but a man w/no legal experience can overrule her?" She went on to say this is "Just another slap in the face for women." I think what is tricky here is that people will argue like she did and others will argue that it's a slap in the face to women if the NFL doesn't increase the suspension.

--What kills me is that posters--and much of the public--seemed okay w/Judge Robinson making the decision. Almost everyone said it's better than Goodell handling it. Now, after Judge Robinson has determined that a 6-game suspension is what's fair, people don't want to accept her decision and are demanding that Goodell increase the suspension. It's freaking hypocritical especially considering that Judge Robinson is far more qualified to rule on such things than Goodell is.

Be sure to let us know when/how that actually matters in any way whatsoever.

Aside from that, Texas is completely screwed up if penetration is required in the definition of sexual assault.

Not sure if it matters if posters feel a different suspension is justified or not - no-one is going to have an impact on the decision Goodell makes. Shouting people down and trying to silence their opinions because you don't agree with them doesn't seem in keeping with the board's purpose.

I'm less worried about the suspension period than I am with the verification of what DW did - what that makes him. Some people have tried to pass this off as he's just "creepy" - but that's not what Sue Robinson said. Some said this was a witch hunt - Robinson verified that's not what this was.

You mean the intended purpose, not the actual right?

j/c:

One good thing for those of us still rooting for the Browns is that after being the lead story the last two days, they haven't talked about Watson during the first hour. It's been the Dolphin story number one, the Cowboys, Tom Brady, and Vin Scully.

Maybe, the attention on the Dolphins is actually a good thing for Watson and the Browns? Maybe it's taking the heat off of them.

Why did the 1st accuser wait for so long to go to the authorities
Why didnt she report the matter or file a report that next day?

Why ask questions that have nothing to do with anything?
Why do we have a Statute of Limitations?

How prophetic was this?

My point being is, if these women were truly "traumatized"
Wouldnt they as soon as they could go to the police
And file a sexual assault ?
If somebody vandalized your vehicle or stole your wallet
Would you wait to take action ......no....you within 30 mins
Are talking to the local PD cause you have,been
Violated and wronged.
Another question that hasnt been asked to my knowledge

How many of the massage therapists are still in the industry?

The NFL purposefully got the Dolphins story out there to lessen the heat on the Watson news IMO. Whether or not they wanna drag it back up and appeal is up to them.

Your point is victim shaming women because you like a football player.

Have any of them been found guilty of what you alledge by a Judge? That was your standard for Watson, why are you changing it now?

Making false statements to police is a crime. Have they been indicted? Have they been charged? You agree your point is silly then, right?

Tend to agree with almost everything you said.

One clarification though... Robinson stated Watson's case was the most egregious for non-violent sexual conduct. Not the most egregious in NFL history.

At first I thought the timing of the Dolphins' punishment to take away the sting of the NFLPA's claim that owners don't get punished for violating the Personal Conduct Policy and that still may be true..........but man, the discussions were heated today about the Dolphins in regards not only to tampering, but also tanking. That also brought race into it because of the Flores suit and the dumb comments by Miami's owner.

The result is that a ton of attention has been taken away from Watson and the Browns. That's a good thing for us who want him to play.

Nobody should be surprised here. This is the NFL consistent response to their highly paid sexual predators. Slap em on the wrist. Play on.

[/quote]

The result is that a ton of attention has been taken away from Watson and the Browns.[/quote]

Lol, i thought you said you're married. Women havent shifted attention from this disgusting chain of events.

While this was going on the focus should have been on Watson, for whatever actions led him to over 20 lawsuits and the Browns for making such a ridiculous offer to someone with so much uncertainty hanging over their head. I've always thought he did not have to be guilty to question his decision making that got him into his predicament in the first place. And questioning the Browns actions in this should be an obvious given.

Now I believe the focus needs to be on the NFL for not having the framework in place to deal with these kinds of issues properly. I feel the Texans should have been giving Watson help, not gag orders to hand out. There is no doubt in my mind the Texans did not help the player, only attempted to protect their image and his. Yes Watson is an adult and able to make his own decisions but the Texans enabled him to make poor ones that should have been working to stop. There is a text out there, which I believe is from someone in the organization, stating that they make all of his appointments "because of issues like this". So far the Texans have escaped public scrutiny for the most part, but the NFL should create rules to stop it from happening again.

The NFL also needs to quickly revisit it's 'punishment' guidelines. The Judge said as things are written now she can only give him 6 games. As a Browns fan I would have preferred that she could have suspended him the whole season but felt he deserved only 6 games. Instead it looks like she would have given him more but was tied by poor Policy and he only gets 6 games, which is a very poor optic.

[quoteInvolving accusations of Sexual Misconduct and Assault per the NFL's policy - Watson is guilty.
His actions were more egregious than ANY other case before the NFL.[/quote]

I just want to make sure that you and others understand she is saying this is the most egregious of the alleged non-violent sexual misconduct cases ever heard by the NFL. It isn't the most egregious case ever heard.

There is a BIG difference there. I think some are missing the context the judge is giving.

The suspension was the highest given for similar alleged cases.

Some people read what they want to read and don't pay attention to what is being said.

JMO

Agreed w/your take.

I want to add this just for thought for those who have not made their mind up one way or the other. When the GJ twice refused to indict Watson, we were told repeatedly on here that that did not indicate Watson's innocence. Now, those same people are telling us that an investigation that was handled by the NFL proves that Watson is guilty.

That isn't logical, in my opinion. It sounds more like people having their minds made up and believing what they choose to believe rather looking for the truth.

Just so you know, it is steve who continually brings up Texas law to the conversation and he wants Watson to be severely punished.

She said that his actions were more egregious than any case involving non-violent sexual assault in the NFL before. There is a HUGE difference between what you said and what she actually said on that point.

Like I said before, Watson is a creep. I liken his actions to creepy guy that makes unwanted advances towards women and "feels them up." Repulsive behavior, especially when using his status as an NFL QB to commit these actions. He definitely deserves to be punished for his actions.

Is this the right punishment? I'd say it's close. I was thinking it would be around 8 games and a hefty fine.

However, many people like to think that Watson forcibly raped these women. That was never proven - in fact, the NFL never tried to argue the point that he forced or coerced anyone of the women to do anything. They had no evidence of it. People like to make these things black and white, but there is obviously varying degrees of "sexual assault" which require varying degrees of punishments.

As I said before, Robinson said it was "indisputable" that his actions did not meet the threshold that required a minimum 6-game suspension for violent sexual assault. That is pretty strong language.

And for those who want the details of Robinson's finding to be buried. As it works out, those are usually the same people.

Really?

Why don't you ask the 70% of women who are victims of rape and sexual assault who never report the event to ANYONE?

You ask those questions as if somehow they are relevant. They are meaningless, except in your mind because you appear to want to ignore Sue Robinson's findings and what DW did.

I agree with your thought process as an overall - 10,000 ft view of the situation. As a Browns fan I am more concerned with the guy found guilty of sexual assault and misconduct who is the face of our franchise.

Nobody is ignoring the findings. She levied her opinion and set a 6 game suspension.

That is all one really needs to know.

It's quite logical. In the first instance a judge never heard and weighed the evidence as it pertains to a finding of guilt or innocence. In the second case a judge did. Try again.

And still it continues. Judge Robinson found him to be guilty of sexual assault and some people are still saying what a judge found to be sexual assault is only creepy. Sad, just sad.

Agreed. The opinion was levied by the judge. Almost universally, people said they preferred her ruling on this rather than Goodell. I thought 6 games was excessive, but I completely accept her decision. Now, we have folks who aren't willing to accept the decision of a female judge and are lobbying for Goodell to overrule that female judge and increase Watson's punishment.

Funny - you said you'd accept Sue Robinson's findings. But here you are trying to deflect and do anything but accept what she said regards DW being guilty, still lying, showing no remorse and acting like a predator. . . . . all the while trying to drown any opinion that doesn't mirror your own.

She even got in to how fair notice is needed if rules are going to be changed because of public outcry. You can't just make them to meet your needs. You can't just make them up and apply them as you go.

That is what she meant when she said “The NFL may be a ‘forward-facing’ organization, but it is not necessarily a forward-looking one,” .

A grand jury's Opinion that it isn't good enough for trial based on the evidence before it would still carry the same weight.

Acting like the Grand Jury is "more right" is really a red herring though. Watson was judged guilty by a preponderance of the evidence, which is a different standard. Which most reasonable people guessed would be the likely outcome from the start.

Noted and agreed - Pen said the same thing. Sorry I wasn't typing out the exact quote and paraphrasing, I didn't mean to give the wrong context of what Sue said.

As for your suggestion DW is just a creep - the rest of what Sue Robinson said indicated that's absolutely not the case. It went far, far beyond just being creepy. But if you want to minimize what he did and the conclusion of the only person who heard the evidence and what she stated - that's your prerogative.

This comment was based only on the NFL wanting a stricter punishment, not a finding of guilt however, for clarity.

As the only person to have heard the evidence, as an experienced Judge - Sue Robinson's "opinion" that Watson acted as a sexual predator (you can't act like a predator without being one btw) - that he lied, that he's shown no remorse, that some,many, most or all of the allegations against him were founded .... that all matters.

The 6 games is the result - and maybe that's all you care about? But there are many others that have a different perspective.

I actually agree with you. She made it pretty clear while she believed harsher penalties may be justified, she said she couldn't see how she could do it....


That's why the report and its findings are so important. The devil is in the details.

This is correct and unequivocal.
She also would have given a lengthier suspension, but couldn't because it appears that she is actually trying to do her job well and is using precedence already set.


Is anybody even debating all of this? It's in some pretty clear writing directly from her. It'd be fairly difficult to misunderstand what she wrote as she was very articulate.
I mean.... what, exactly, is everyone arguing about anymore? Does anyone even know?