DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Quinshon Judkins Arrested for Domestic Violence

NFL
345 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10154

They NFL didn't want money.

The difference is in those grand juries the only evidence that could be shown involved that one woman involved in that one case. The NFL allowed two women to tell their stories. Those grand juries had no idea there were other victims or how many.

So in your world all 26 of those women were money grubbing whoores and the woman involved in the Judkins case is the beacon of truth. And you claim I'm the one being judgemental?

You are hilarious! Have you ever considered stand up comedy?

And you claim I'm the one being judgemental?

Is the only reason you are sticking up for watson, who anyone with an ounce of common sense knows did these things, is because he wears a Browns uniform? Or are you being purposefully obtuse again?

I never said the woman involved in the Judkins case is telling the truth. I do feel the Browns front office is using Judkins to send a message to the team that this will not be tolerated any longer. Now that don't mean they won't sign Judkins. They will. He was a 2nd round pick; He was an extra pick from the trade down at #2 and they will not just cut ties with him over this. But they are trying to send a message to him and everyone drafted in the future.

The only message being sent by the Browns is that just like myself, they are waiting to see how things play out before they commit. Why would they do otherwise? Smart business isn't personal or intended to send a personal message. They're simply using practical, common sense.

Watson acted as a pervert. But no worse than the Patriots owner. Who by the way the NFL did nothing about. I think he did engage in happy ending massages. I do believe the large majority of the woman that gave Watson massages knew what they were signed up for. Maybe a couple did not, I know that one that cried even said he stopped right away. It weird it is a sick act. It was not criminal act like many believe. I do believe, most of the woman that came out of the woodwork only came out was to get $$$. I do not see why he should be treated as a criminal if he was not found to be a criminal. That goes against all the US stands for.

How did these women "know what they signed up for"? So when you "think something" it isn't judgemental but when I think something it is? And all i am thinking in terms of Judkins is let's let the process play out first.

There is zero to base any of those things on other than you believing there was something morally corrupt about these women in your mind. You just accused 20+ women of being gold diggers and intentionally walking into a situation where they knew they would be sexually abused. That's disgusting.

Facts say that there was no evidence of criminal behavior took place. He is then in turn innocent until proven other wise.

Since the grand jury only heard from a single witness they didn't see the bulk of the evidence. Keep claiming that didn't make any difference.

The NFL looked at the facts based on two witnesses.

NFL
345 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10154

Just keep talking your snack even when you don't know what you are talking about..

Like I said, it usually doesn't go from nothing to a punch in the mouth. Thanks for the back-up.

Pit seems to be waiting for video evidence that Judkins hit the woman. Unfortunately, most domestic violence cases don't get caught on video.

I am not judging anything here. All of that will play out if indeed it goes to trial. If it does, he will say innocent of charges. She will claim he did and be able to show police photo's of her with a busted up mouth and bruises to the legs and a mug shot of the guy because the police felt there was probable cause to make the arrest.

Does that mean he did it? No. It does present a fair amount of circumstantial evidence that will work in her favor.

I had no idea waiting on a verdict from a jury was "waiting on video evidence". That sounds ridiculous.


So now, after making that dumb statement above, in the end you're saying exactly what I'm saying.

No, I am not saying the exact thing you are saying.

A quote from your post states otherwise. I said let's wait on a jury to decide. That has nothing to do with video evidence.


That is exactly what I've been saying.

And i said more in my post, so we aren't saying the same thing.

I really don't have anything else to say to you on the matter so make your last comment and the board will be better off once that happens.

Either you presume he's guilty or you don't. I say that's up for the jury to decide. You agreed. Of course you editorialized it further than that but the end result was the same.

It wasn't. No doubt if it goes to trial it will depend on a jury or a judge if a bench trial is requested. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. The reality is it probably won't. Based on the evidence as it stands today it isn't looking good for Mr. Judkins and a plea will be taken if one is offered by the DA and accepted by the judge.

The difference in this case over the Watson deal....a case by the way where you were ready to hang Watson and the Browns when there was no physical evidence where Watson coerced, held hostage or threatened the massage therapists in to any act they didn't perform willingly, if in fact any of them did.

You were swayed by the number of women when in reality, 70 people testifying to the same thing doesn't carry any more weight than if one made the claim if the added testimony doesn't shed more light on the matter.

In this case you have a woman who said she was assaulted by Judkins, and had the physical evidence to show that something happened. As I said in an earlier post, does that mean he did? No, but it isn't looking good. She also said there were previous events of violence, though they didn't rise to the same level.

I can't explain it any more clearly.

26 women verses 1 woman. I'm pretty sure you can still count. After cutting out all the BS you already explained it quite well.....


And yes, more witnesses and victims testifying to a similar pattern of conduct adds greatly to the weight of the evidence. In what world do you think that it doesn't?

So your argument has now evolved into "something happened"?

Either you are judging it or you aren't. I can't explain it any clearer than that.

I’m curious about a lot of things here: when does the NFL step in, he’ll be suspended no doubt but are they waiting for the final verdict, so to speak?

If Judkins is guilty he needs to throw himself at the mercy of the court, take anger management classes and do some serious damage control. He’ll have a career but it doesn’t look 👀 too good for him.

Great 26, 70, it makes no difference.

I live in the world of law. It might make a difference in the view of public opinion, but the number of people who testify to the same thing and offer nothing different from other testimony doesn't really matter. The numbers don't matter...1-26-70. If it doesn't prove anything, it doesn't prove anything.

I am not judging anything. You are the one claiming I am. I don't know if he did or didn't. Where have I said he is guilty? If you recall all of this stems from a question if Berry or the Browns investigated this pre-draft. Then I posted up there were issues at Ole Miss. Not so much about violence but Ole Miss players not being sorry to see him leave. I wondered if they looked back a year or two further to look in to that?

Subsequently she has said there have been other instances of abuse, but not to that level. What we do know is what she has said, alleged photos of her with bruising around the mouth and in the legs. We know that Q was arrested and charged with domestic violence.

That is what we know. Something happened, and it isn't good. And by the way, that something could be she walked in to a door to bust up her mouth and beat her own legs to cause swelling and bruising in some sort of revenge motivation.

I will give you one point...at least to a degree. In a civil matter you don't need to prove something beyond reasonable doubt. One only needs to tip the scales of justice a fraction so the number of claimants can add weight to the claim.

I'm not sure you have been reading my posts. I said we are saying the same thing in so much that a jury will decide his guilt or innocence. You claimed that was wrong. Not me.

And yes, if a jury, who decides guilt or innocence, heard 26 witnesses describing a pattern of conduct it would make a difference. Let's try this again shall we?


I tried to state we agreed about a jury deciding this case. You argued that point, not me.

Make up my mind.