DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum you won't look at marvin harrison the same after this

too long to copy and paste here. linked from peter king's mmqb article. ridiculous stuff.

Quote:

---

http://www.gq.com/sports/profiles/201002/marvin-harrison

---

thanks for posting....a ton of disturbing details in there that I hadn't seen before.

Heard the guys on ESPN radio talking about this article the other day, but didn't get to hear the details.

Not sure what to think......did Harrison shoot at this guy, it sure a H E double toothpicks sounds like he did, but was he involved in the final shooting??????

I could see some of his "people" taking care of this guy without Marvin ever knowing a thing about it.

I want to believe that Marvin Harrison is the good guy that we have all been led to beleive by the media before this story broke. The NFL just does not have enough "good" stories. Right now I think I am leaning to the side that he really is a good guy that was trying to do good things in a bad place and that it eventually caught up to him. He made a huge mistake in his 1st run in with this guy...........and I can't justify what he allegedly did, but I still don't want to believe that he had anything to do with the final act.

I will continue to follow the story though.

Thanks for the article and the link.

Well worth the read.

Thank you, that was a real good article and a great read. It really opened my eyes up to some stuff I hadn't heard about before.

I knew Harrison had some charge against him that was dealing with something about guns, but I never imagined those sort of details. Plus, just like the start of the article said, I always thought of him as humble or a nice guy.

Maybe I was wrong?

always seemed like such a quiet guy

Those are the ones that you have to watch out for.

hey, now, I resemble that remark................... I think

That was a terribly biased and sensasionalist article that was more or less a scene from a soprano's episode and not a report on what did or did not happen. I pretty much agree with what the people who commented on the article are saying. This guy is no "journalist."

I don't know if Harrison did anything wrong or not, but if they have evidence that he did then I hope he gets tried and convicted. But to use this as a basis to condemn the guy, hopefully people are smarter than that.

no one was condemning him. further, the article wasn't that biased. it was based on the interviews from the other side, granted, but the article does state that the police found it to be consistent from many different sources.

we've seen far more bias in any of the plain dealer qb articles in the past few years.

further, the article clearly played a role in the new DA looking at the case again:

Quote:

---

Of all the potential publications that could effect positive change in matters relating to pro football, GQ previously occupied a spot just above Good Housekeeping.

In the part several months, two eye-opening items have made GQ a major player in two key issues: the ongoing concussion debate, and the curious case of Marvin Harrison.

As to the former, Jeanne Marie Laskas' compelling account of recent discoveries regarding the long-term impact of brain injuries arguably helped set in motion the events that resulted in Congress letting the league know that if the league doesn't clean up its backyard in this regard, Congress will do it instead -- which then prompted the league to start raking. Quickly.

Now, Jason Fagone's excellent article regarding the multiple shootings of David Dixon (who undoubtedly did not imitate Plaxico Burress in either case) has put receiver Marvin Harrison back in the spotlight.

Fagone reports as a follow-up to his article that the new Philadelphia District Attorney, Seth Williams, is "taking a fresh look" at the case. (Fagone also provides some extra insight regarding the story at Deadspin.)

It's very bad news for Harrison, given that he already has told police that the gun used in the April 2008 shooting of Dixon never left Harrison's possession on the day in question.

On one hand, we're amazed that the case has languished -- and we're flabbergasted that something like Fagone's article could be responsible for pushing the matter forward. On the other hand, the situation confirms that justice often results from persistence, and that sometimes the persistence needs to come from an unusual source.

It's the kind of thing that should inspire others who are seeking justice of their own to keep telling their stories until someone finally listens.

Meanwhile, Fagone's friends and family members should be persistent with their recommendations that he avoid returning to Philly for a long while, if ever.

---

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/201...-harrison-case/

No one is condemning him? There are many many people condemning him. People calling into to talk shows, people interviewed in the news, people making comments to the article, etc.

The article was very sensationalist. At one point he tried to make the reader angry at Harrison because a few adults abandoned a bloody eyed 2 year old. He didn't make them leave the boy in the car but he wants you to make that connection to support his opinion.

And just because we have shoddy reporting at the Plain Dealer doesn't make it ok for everyone else to be shoddy too

i think you're drastically missing on this article. he didn't try to make anyone angry about anything. he's writing on the accounts on a witness, which was corroborated by the police. if people were going to be angry at anything, it's that harrison supposedly shot at a moving car, endangering others in the process. i understand that the media is typically sensational, it's how papers/magazines are sold, but this is not one of those cases where there is drastic exaggeration. just because you choose not to believe it does not mean it's not possible that it happened. you can choose to question the testimony by the witnesses but you're reaching right now.

time will tell with the new DA. sometimes i wonder if it's always fashionable for some to question anything for the sake of questioning it. when you have harrison saying that he had the 5-7 in his possession the entire time, but that no on shot it, and you have a guy with a bullet in him shot from the same gun, you have questions to ask. you also have to ask why it is that espn said that gun was a "collector's" item when this article articulates that it's clearly not a collector item.

ultimately, i'm not saying harrison is guilty right now but it sure doesn't look good for him, regardless of the article. just that he had the gun the entire time, the gun was in a BUCKET at the car wash the day the cops show and harrison saying what he did. i do have a problem with people wanting to automatically take a side against the media just because it seems like an intelligent thing to do.

I personally DO believe that Harrison is guilty of at least trying to take him out before he was taken out, but my opinion on that makes no difference when talking about the article, which is what I was doing. I'll even give you my reasons for not liking it and thinking its sensationalism written to try and sell magazines:

1. The name of the article is called The Dirtiest Player. Sensationalist title, check.

2. There's a picture of a raw fish wrapped in a newspaper that asks if Marvin Harrison pulled the trigger. Attention grabbing imagery, check.

3. He tries to spin the fact that through his entire career Harrison kept to himself and kept his nose out of trouble into some kind of troubling sign and that he was hiding who he really was. That may or may not be true but until he's convicted you can't portray it as fact. We still don't know if its true or not.

4. He tries to get you to make the connection that because Marvin's father and brothers and cousin are thugs and drug dealers that Marvin is an unsavory individual. The author points out the violent family history and then says that its street logic to put an end to the threats being made by Nixon.

5. The author makes it a repeated point to question the character of Nixon but then decides to throw that out when he uses Nixon's account of what happened as the basis for the entire article.

6. There seems to be a presumption of guilt from the tone the writer used in his piece, but that may just be my intrepretation of it.

I can't get into any more detail than that right now as I'm writing this from the lab computer at work and I have to get back to my testing. But I can say that this article seemed to be intended to get people against Harrison because the author thinks he's guilty. May be true, but I'd rather let the law decide that than a writer trying to sell magazines.

i'm not going to go through the efforts of discounting your points even though i know there are excerpts from the article that does. i don't agree with your take and you don't agree with mine. that's fine.

jc

IMO who cares ? IF Marvin had this done then really what is the downside ? On one hand we have a businessman who by all accounts does good things for his communtiy and on the other hand we have an admitted drug dealing convict who now is no longer a drain on his community and the State of Pennsylvania .

So what you're saying is I'm wrong, but you won't tell me why?

Then why post in the first place?

to voice my opinion that i think you're wrong