Antonio Brown

[seven]

My immediate reaction to the kid's photo was he's done.
To me, it was Not a subtle message.
*
Could they have ridden it out?
Maybe, but I am already exhausted from it
on my couch 180 miles from Gillette

Has anyone defended him in sports media?
Volume would be 10X if AB was still here
Part of every pre-game & post game story
and in the daily talking head rotation.
A hate revival meet, especially if they play up to potential.
07 all over again.

It was already boiling over
BB did 4 things with the press for the week, 3 of them became about AB

Finally, the team does not need him, nor does anyone really know the man
Started with strike 1 on day 3, then two more issues in the first week.
He had to go.

But it could have been a blast.
Was worth the shot
*
Hope AB does not become a tragic figure
Sure seems to be playing that way.

 

[Ring 6]

If it was a threat what did he threaten her to not do and what were the consequences he threatened to occur if she did?
Without those answers it’s not a threat.

 

[blackglass3]

I am in shock people are still defending this guy. It's over. Kraft thought it was wrong, Belichick thought it was wrong, they cut him. He's stupid for doing it, without that this whole thing dies down and people are moving on to the next shiny object.

 

[shmessy]

.......
She invited the contact by speaking derogatorily about him in a National magazine article, did she not?.......

.

The answer to that is NO. Clearly and with no hesitations.

No, Andy.

.

 

[fnordcircle]

It is not a threat to communicate with someone unless you actually threaten them.

No threat here. I'm just posting a picture of a gun in this thread for no reason. Context never matters and a threat can't be implied it has to be overtly spoken, right?

Edit: I should probably clarify - A) I'm not threatening you B) I don't own a gun, I'm just trying to give an example of how a threat can be implied and not stated.

 

[Ring 6]

The answer to that is NO. Clearly and with no hesitations.

No, Andy.

Then you are wrong.
She went to a national magazine to publicly air a dispute with him.
He responded somewhat privately.
Once she went public of course she invited a response.

 

[Ring 6]

No threat here. I'm just posting a picture of a gun in this thread for no reason. Context never matters and a threat can't be implied it has to be overtly spoken, right?

Correct. A picture of a gun is not a threat. Now you are starting to get it.

 

[Ring 6]

Why am I thinking of pretzels right now?

.

Perhaps because you lack the intelligence to follow.

 

[shmessy]

Then you are wrong.
She went to a national magazine to publicly air a dispute with him.
He responded somewhat privately.
Once she went public of course she invited a response.

Have a great night Andy!

.

 

[Betterthanmost]

I think AB has NPD.

 

[skspikex2]

We went from AB positive to AB negative.

 

[patfanken]

Nope. In Andy’s book a threat can only be that which meets the definition of threat. A threat is not an inappropriate comment that you want to sensationalize by calling it a threat.
Go ahead prove me wrong.
What did he threaten? How did he make the threat? What words or actions constitute threat? Be prepared to defend your position.
Otherwise keep trolling, it’s what you do.

You have made a point that I think is important to discuss FAR beyond the very narrow and shallow world of Antonio Brown.

What IS intimidating or threatening email in the internet age. Is it threatening if I am a white supremacist who emails the first black student body president at American University pictures of nooses, blazing crosses and white supremacist harangues. Is it only "free speech" to do something similar to a Jewish family...or an Asian family.....or a Mexican family.

So the greater issue here is what constitutes free speech, and what is harassment and threatening behavior. Was the Charlotte white power demonstration free speech, or was it just a way to intimidate minorities? Is it appropriate to allow Hitler (were he alive) or his current proxies to speak on college campuses?

I wish it was an easy yes or no answer, but we all know it isn't. And JUST because the discussion is hard, doesn't mean it doesn't need to be discussed, (though probably not here. ). The real problem in the country right now is that very fact, a refusal to have the will to discuss hard topics without just yelling one side of the issue at the other, with the LOUDEST voice winning (or in our case, the guy with the most money).

All the talk here about whether it was threatening or not revolves around this central question, only the impact of the answer this society will ultimately end up going with, will be a LOT more impact on our society than what a turd who plays football well did.

 

[fnordcircle]

I think AB has NPD.

I think he's definitely unwell in at least one way. Honestly if the sexual assault allegations are not true then all I feel is sad for the guy because he's crashing and burning in pretty awful fashion.

 

[fnordcircle]

We went from AB positive to AB negative.

GOD ****ING DAMNIT MODS BAN THIS MAN IMMEDIATELY

 

[Ring 6]

You have made a point that I think is important to discuss FAR beyond the very narrow and shallow world of Antonio Brown.

I’ll give you my opinion on each.

What IS intimidating or threatening email in the internet age. Is it threatening if I am a white supremacist who emails the first black student body president at American University pictures of nooses, blazing crosses and white supremacist harangues. Is it only "free speech" to do something similar to a Jewish family...or an Asian family.....or a Mexican family.

That would be threatening from anyone to anyone. There is a well accepted meaning of those images.

So the greater issue here is what constitutes free speech, and what is harassment and threatening behavior. Was the Charlotte white power demonstration free speech, or was it just a way to intimidate minorities? Is it appropriate to allow Hitler (were he alive) or his current proxies to speak on college campuses?

I think those are examples of free speech. The Charlotte example though is changed by the fact that violence ensued. Free speech and a violent act while exercising free speech should be separated.
My understanding of free speech is that all ideas are treated equally regardless of how good or bad they are. In other words in you ban hitler from speaking it opens the door to banning MLK. A judgment about the quality of the speech causes abuses.

I wish it was an easy yes or no answer, but we all know it isn't. And JUST because the discussion is hard, doesn't mean it doesn't need to be discussed, (though probably not here. ). The real problem in the country right now is that very fact, a refusal to have the will to discuss hard topics without just yelling one side of the issue at the other, with the LOUDEST voice winning (or in our case, the guy with the most money).

This has always been a problem. It’s the nature of our system. I don’t see anything the founding fathers did that encouraged anything in government to be easy.
The dilemma I see is that the argument is framed for the public by the media (and to a lesser extent the politicians) and those in front of a microphone are almost always the furthest from the middle of the road so the debate centers on the extremes instead if he middle ground.

All the talk here about whether it was threatening or not revolves around this central question, only the impact of the answer this society will ultimately end up going with, will be a LOT more impact on our society than what a turd who plays football well did.

To me it centers on whether you can take what he did and prove it to be a threat. I don’t see how you can without making huge assumptions that cannot be proven.

 

[Antdawg]

but the media and her attorney played you by sensationalizing this by incorrectly calling it threatening.

Media didn't play me at all. As soon as I read what he did, I knew it wasn't going to age well, because it was threatening and worse yet, it was toward a woman. People who get out and understand how the real world works understand that was a threat and that you don't send text messages like that to a woman, because it's going to be called a threat. They don't need the media to explain it to them. People with no life and a lot of time to kill will spend hours on the internet attempting to troll anyone who will listen though. If you actually need someone to explain to you why that was a threatening, stalking text message, I suggest you try getting some UV exposure more than once a decade. Your delusion is unparalleled.

 

[Ring 6]

I think he's definitely unwell in at least one way. Honestly if the sexual assault allegations are not true then all I feel is sad for the guy because he's crashing and burning in pretty awful fashion.

I would guess all of the allegations are true. I would guess he is an even worse person than what he is being portrayed as.

 

[mgteich]

I'll give a very simple example situation.

Someone has been rambling me in a harassing way. I send that person a picture of her children coming out of school, with nothing else. Believe it or not, that is DEFINITELY a prosecutable threat.

 

[Ring 6]

Media didn't play me at all. As soon as I read what he did, I knew it wasn't going to age well, because it was threatening and worse yet, it was toward a woman. People who get out and understand how the real world works understand that was a threat and that you don't send text messages like that to a woman, because it's going to be called a threat. They don't need the media to explain it to them. People with no life and a lot of time to kill will spend hours on the internet attempting to troll anyone who will listen though. If you actually need someone to explain to you why that was a threatening, stalking text message, I suggest you try getting some UV exposure more than once a decade. Your delusion is unparalleled.

Then you should be able to answer how it qualifies as a threat by telling me
1) what consequence is being threatened


2) what action does the threat say will result in that consequence

You can’t find it because it’s not there. It’s only there in YOUR interpretation of what YOU think he meant and why YOU think he did it.
Words and criminal descriptions have meaning.
You can’t take something you don’t like and apply whatever negative word of crime you wish to. It just doesn’t work that way.

Tell me you think she could go to the police and have him charged with, arrested for and convicted of making threats?

 

[sambam94]

I'll give a very simple example situation.

Someone has been rambling me in a harassing way. I send that person a picture of her children coming out of school, with nothing else. Believe it or not, that is DEFINITELY a prosecutable threat.

yup, might be..but this is not what AB did. He was asked for the accuser's info. He gave that(it's blacked out, I think many are missing this point) along with an IG pic of her which also had her 2 kids in it. The intent was to show his assistant who she was and that she looked broke..I assume because the kids were dressed in T-shirts? Hard to tell because it's mostly blacked out.
The context of him sending that pic was not threatening, it was degrading yes, but not threatening.