DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Watson: Getcha Popcorn

A perfect example of the toxicity of that poster ... You accurately called him out, politely called his post misinformation, in return he calls you a liar with no basis in reality. WE CAN ALL REQD THE POST. Vers post was inaccurate, the sort of post he calls lies, and spams the board with name calling when he sees it in others.smh

And it's yet further evidence he hides behind having me blocked while he can't keep my name out of his mouth at the same time. There's a name for people like that.

So, you are saying I didn't say allegations of rape? Do you think I proofread my post? I know he wasn't charged. I knew they were allegations. You are just looking for a fight.

Excerpts from the article

Former DA in Georgia on why he didn’t prosecute Ben Roethlisberger for alleged rape in 2010: ‘We did not have a case’
By Christian Red
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

The former Ocmulgee (Ga.) Judicial Circuit district attorney, in 2010 declined to prosecute Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger for an alleged rape.

Fred Bright, the now retired prosecutor, "My job as a prosecutor is to determine whether or not I have a prosecutable case, which we did not."

Roethlisberger was investigated but never charged in the Milledgeville case, nor was he charged in Nevada, where a woman named Andrea McNulty accused Roethlisberger of sexually assaulting her in 2008 in Lake Tahoe. McNulty filed a civil suit against Roethlisberger, and a settlement was reached for an undisclosed amount.

Bright says today that he has no lingering doubts about his decision in 2010.

"It wasn't a difficult decision," says Bright. "I'm a prosecutor seeking justice, and we did not have a case. It was not even a close call."

Bright adds that after the alleged victim in the Milledgeville case and her attorney stated that she did not want to pursue the case, Bright wanted to hear from the woman directly, and he and members of the Milledgeville Police Department and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation -- two agencies that investigated Roethlisberger in the case -- drove to the woman's home to meet.

"Her mother and her lawyer and she made it crystal clear that they did not want to go forward with this," says Bright. "It would have been the wrong thing to do to prosecute Roethlisberger. There was that line that I used in the (2010) press conference, 'We do not prosecute morals, we prosecute crimes.'"

Bright says that he is not aware of Roethlisberger making any kind of payoff to the alleged victim in the Milledgeville case. NFL commissioner Roger Goodell suspended Roethlisberger for six games for violating the league's personal conduct policy, but the punishment was later reduced to four games.

Says Bright, "There's not a doubt in my mind that had the case gone to trial, a jury would have found (Roethlisberger) not guilty. To be blunt, my decision was the only decision that could be reached by any responsible prosecutor."


Straight from the horse's mouth. If people are comfortable still calling Roethlisberger a rapist without charges, then they should have no problem accepting the same conclusion that Watson is a 3-time minimum sexual abuser (Under Texas Law nonconsensual oral sex is classified the exact same as nonconsensual intercourse under Sexual Abuse.)

I pointed out my problem with the definition and the timing (which is one of the problems with the definition).

You failed to read what I wrote (I predicted this) and you made an argument based on what you think I said, not what I said (not a surprise). And you added your own brand of spite to this (which I predicted).

You mentioned it twice in your post and I pointed out it was not used in the report for any finding.

j/c:

Not looking for a fight at all. However, you have accused numerous posters of saying charged when they didn't or inadvertently left out alleged. More important though is you imply that Roethlisberger was investigated by the NFL for 2 alleged rapes when it was only one. The NFL never investigated the second one and the sheriff's office never investigated the allegation since no criminal complaint was ever filed.

Okay. Believe what you will. I think most of the board knows exactly what the truth is.

Certainly not the BS you continue to spew.

Revisionist history doesn't change what you posted in your response. Nothing here in any way describes what you find fault with in terms of what the definition itself states. Instead you claimed it did and created some lame personal attack because all you want to do is fight.

Hilarious.

Classic "It's being Reported that" ...... and a report on someone's tweet which is the only "Source" for this story that has been mentioned multiple times now as if it's factual.

Sorry, you may be right. Most of the board does know exactly what the truth is - that Watson is a predator who exhibited most egregious behavior by any player ever in the NFL while allegedly sexually assaulting at least 3 women with nonconsensual oral sex and 24 women with alleged sexual misconduct/harassment. The NFL investigation has proven that Watson violated the CBA's PCP with his egregious behavior against 4 of those women and the final punishment is still being decided.

Your ipse dixit does not make your assertion correct, because you fail to read what I wrote does not mean I did not write it. I am not doing the homework for you, it is there.

Go play your deflection games elsewhere.

J/c

Again, I find the report that he doesn’t want Watson playing week 12 because of the Texans game … I mean, what if that game woulda been week 2? Or week 16?

Any word if Goodell and the NFL are planning on punishing the Texans since they helped enable and were participants in the allegations of sexual misconduct or are they going to walk away w/out any punishment at all?

Crazy me, I'm still trying to figure out how an opinion can be wrong?

I don't know but how could your concern be what the Texans did or didn't do when you continue to post that Watson hasn't done anything to be suspended for? IMO, the Texans have basically said that Watson was a predator with egregious behavior and should experience some kind of penalty for enabling Watson's predatory behavior, but they are secondary to the problem. Not sure what that penalty should be (I'm sure you want the death penalty) but until Watson comes clean a grey area is going to be hanging over the whole thing. I think the Browns should be investigated to as to their knowledge of the problem. The other issue would certainly be what did the Texans know and when? That may cost the Texans some money and some lower tiered person their job, but it will expose Watson's indiscretions even more. JMHO

Why on earth would you think that? To what end?

Since you are having an issue grasping your error I've bolded it. At no point did I say her ruling was based on the point he ejaculated on someone as you claim. I asked you if you were saying you would not consider ejaculating on someone without consent sexual assault. I asked you if you believed a reasonable person would not think the same action could not be considered "Disorderly Conduct" and "Conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL personnel".


Those are the three areas the Judge based her response on. I've highlighted the entire sentences for you because THAT is what I said, not what just what you focused on. You refused to answer the question because the answer is not one you want to say.

No, I didn't answer that specifically as what I think of that really has no bearing on the idea it wasn't used in this case. I don't think people should shoot each other, but that isn't important in this case either.

No, one should no go around randomly ejaculating on other people without their consent. But that has no bearing on this case. It also has no bearing on the idea that the NFL made the rules from the facts of the case so that it was a forgone conclusion. That does have bearing on this case and Robinson even pointed out the NFl had no prior definition.

Just a couple of reasons. The Browns said they did an exhaustive comprehensive search into Watson that started I believe sometime in early November, and they were comfortable with what they found. What did they find?

The Texans settled 30 civil suits for basically enabling Watson. Now there's ripple's wanting the Texans investigated and held accountable by the NFL for their part in the Watson saga. Depending on what the Browns discovered or what the Texans may have told the Browns (surely there was talk between the teams prior to the trade), did the Browns receive information about Watson's predatory actions or the Texans trying to cover things up prior to the suit and not report that to the NFL?

Are the Browns equally guilty of enabling Watson if they had information of Watson and the Texans indiscretions and not report their knowledge of the violations to the NFL or have the Browns just been totally buffaloed by Watson's claim of innocence and the Texans silence even after claiming they investigated the player and the allegations for over 4-months but didn't discover any of the items we now know as being true based on the NYTimes investigation, NFL investigation, Judge Robinson's determination of PCP violations and the Texans settlement?

I'm not saying the Browns did anything wrong, but they should be looked at to make sure that they didn't have previous knowledge that they should have reported to the NFL and basically just did a very poor job of vetting Watson before they traded for him and gave him the biggest guaranteed contract ever in the NFL just because they didn't do a good job of vetting him.

Hey Frank, it’s been awhile. I am wondering what your beliefs are on Watson.

I expect a decision today, mostly because they released it last Monday morning

The arrogance and outright sense of entitlement of the owners never ceases to amaze me.

When the Browns GM says that his organization has done a proper investigation that they’re satisfied with and that they’re comfortable with what they found is probably more of a indication of a dysfunctional and incompetent leadership then anything else. Instead of a honest and neutral attempt to find the truth about the allegations they handing the biggest contract with guaranteed money in the history of the NFL to a player with such a questionable background.

Accountability starts at the top and the Browns supporters deserves better then such spineless leadership.

I still support the Browns and I suspect that folks like you are in the minority. We'll see what the stadium looks like come opening day.

Exactly and TY for being so candid. That was my point of the original post. Do the Browns have some responsibility for their part in covering this up or were they really just that inept when taking 4-months to do an investigation and not find anything? There should be zero tolerance for the mistreatment of a women by a player in the NFL. It should be noted that the NFL has not always done a respectable job in the past of addressing this either. However, we're not just talking about an incident between a player and a woman. The facts are this case is about a player and 24 different women with alleged claims of sexual abuse/misconduct/ harassment and another 30 civil suits by women against the Texans alleging they enabled that type of egregious behavior by Watson. In total, that's 53 civil suits settled - 1 pending - and 1 withdrawn that could be refiled to date. The ugly fact about all this is every one of those cases has Watson's name attached to it in one way or another for his alleged mistreatment of women and that cannot be disputed. It's about time for people stand up and take notice that Watson is not the person he continues to claim to be.

Jerry Jones is what’s wrong with the NFL … owners like him are such scum

You can always rely on him to make a bad situation worse.

Whenever he takes a microphone I cringe …

Why don’t you hold the Browns owner, GM and HC accountable the same way you hold the NFL and their owners accountable for hypocrisy regarding poor historical treatments on black players?

Do you honestly think that the Browns has from a PR and professional standpoint handled this well? The Browns and judge Robinson’s conclusions about Watson’s character is like night and day. Where the Browns are “comfortable with what we know” judge Robinson sees a lier and a sexual predator.

Don’t you notice the discrepancies in character judgement and who’s opinion do you think hold most weight in the national media and among the majority of the public opinion?

It's only gibberish due to your willful ignorance and/or need to argue. Simple Google search brings up countless articles on the new policy and Goodell previously being judge, jury, executioner... no transparency... etc.

By this rationale everything is 100% fine with every organization in the NFL - issues with Snyder, Kraft, Miami - all good, because come game day, those games and stadiums will be packed with fans.

Sorry - it's not a good metric.

It sounds like you want them investigated to provide "gotcha" points for the extreme anti Browns/DW folks. Nobody's going to launch an investigation for that. There has to be some evidence to support that they did something to violate the law or NFL rules and policies.

Your assertion that the NFL "made the rules from the facts of the case so that it was a forgone conclusion" is simply a BS conspiracy theory. And all Robinson did was point out what her decision was based on just like any other judge would point to the statute they based their decision on. The fact is the definition points out what would be criminal acts and he was found guilty of these acts in the hearing. Of course it's not uncommon in this age to blame everyone else other than the person who committed atrocious acts. And especially when it comes to those acts being perpetrated against women.

It seems to be a common theme that watsons revolting behavior against women isn't that bad, it's only creepy, the league stacked the cards against him and it's everyone elses fault he is being held accountable and expected to receive a fitting punishment.

So it's then your assertion that since the media and their reporters didn't bother to read the agreement and falsely reported it, that's somehow the leagues fault. That plain English in the contract means nothing and somehow no matter how plainly the process is spelled out means nothing to you. Got it.