Antonio Brown

maust1013 said:

You would do well to avoid assuming what an educated, well rounded adult with a lifetime of experience 'seems' be referring to. My only point was simply that yours was not well thought out or made. For someone that often purports to represent a larger view on things you are perhaps a bit too quick to decide what others mean and interpret their statements based upon your own narrow viewpoints.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Click to expand...

I clarified my point to better capture my ideas. If I assumed something about your perspective that was untrue then let me be the first to apologize.

My post wasn't meant to be a hit against traditional marriage -- I think a lot of the values embodied in traditional marriage are good things.

I was simply stating that the notion that moral sex can only occur within that framework is antiquated and untrue, IMO. If you disagree with that then there's no need to discuss further, as we'll agree to disagree.

Just so we are clear on what the Pennsylvania DA can look into

The first alleged incident happened at Brown’s Pittsburgh-area home in early June 2017, and the second alleged incident happened at his Miami home in late June 2017. The third alleged incident happened at his South Florida home in May 2018

First one she alleges he exposed himself and kissed her.

So the essentially the Pennsylvania DA can only look into indecent exposure and a kiss without consent. Unless Brown had security cameras in his home and they are still on a hard-drive somewhere, gonna be very hard for them to prove this.

Political grandstanding here.

Brady_Moss said:

Click to expand...

I side on giving the accuser a lot of the benefit of the doubt in cases of sexual assault allegations. But if the accuser hasn't tried to file criminal charges for allegations where the statutes of limitations haven't run out while filing civil charges, it does raise a red flag for me. I doesn't mean she is lying, but I gotta wonder why she would be willing to go through a civil case and what should be a torturous deposition yet not be willing to go through a criminal trial where there are protections for the victim. As a plaintiff in civil trial, virtually nothing about her private life and past sexual history is off limits in a deposition and possibly in a trial.

I still won't dismiss her case as a money grab as of right now, but she will need to explain at some point (not necessarily to the public) why she would seek monetary justice rather than criminal justice if she never tried to file a criminal complaint.

She has a right to be heard and Brown has a right to defend himself. Unfortunately, this could come down to a he said/she said and we will never know for sure who is telling the truth.

I would question the DA's ability to be impartial........he dismissed a case against Joey Porter where Porter assaulted a cop......due to the cop being 'questionable'

Steelers reinstate Joey Porter after most charges dropped

raduray said:

Also not a lawyer, but I doubt legal ethics would allow him to lie. And nothwithstanding legal obligations, his professional reputation would be damaged if it turns out he lied.

Click to expand...

Not saying he lied. If asked about anything else the Pats may be interested in knowing, maybe he said "Not at liberty to say" or similar. I don't know how these conversations go in practice. This may be reason #236 why the contract contains boilerplate clauses to protect the team for things Drew couldn't discuss.

Regards
Chris

BradyFTW! said:

It's SMY. She sucks and has for as long as I can remember.

Click to expand...

I highly doubt her hubby has had a hummer in a very long time...if ever.

BradyFTW! said:

Of course the whole irrational trope exists, the point of contention is that anti-feminists would have you believe they're all over the place dominating the whole discourse, and that's just not really true. The vast majority of people wait for, at a minimum, a lot more evidence and a far greater pattern of behavior than what we've seen here.

Click to expand...

It has been amplified and maybe over exaggerated because of the Kavenaugh hearing.

Lavictoire said:

There is a diffrence between casual/recreational sex and long term cohabituatuon or commitment which is basically marriage. My point is today's sexual free for all is asking for trouble like this.

Click to expand...

You may be taking crap for this perspective, but I think you're right. It's not a comment about whether people are "good" or "bad". I mean, just on one level (which doesn't appear to be an issue in the AB case), the more sex partners you have, the more at-risk you are for a sexually-transmitted disease.

"You’re more likely to get HIV or another STD when you have more than one sex partner, or many sex partners during your lifetime. That’s because more people mean more chances that one or more of them will have HIV or an infection. Ever heard the saying that when you have sex with someone, you’re having sex with everyone they’ve ever had sex with?" (From WebMD)

There are other consequences as well, but I don't want to derail the thread too much.

Fatmancryin said:

I described the 3 alleged instances.

How does a person ejaculate on another persons back while sitting down watching a church service on an iPad?

Click to expand...

Very carefully

mgcolby said:

I agree to a point, I guess the available evidence so far makes it appear more likely to be a money grab than an assault. So to be fair, you are correct. She looks shady though and if there were more evidence pointing to rape I would say the opposite.

But obviously none of know all the facts.

Click to expand...

Yeah I think the really important point to keep hitting on at risk of this whole discussion taking a dark turn is "available evidence so far" amounts to very little. It's just way premature to be making an evaluation of any significance. So even qualifying "she seems like a liar" with "based on what we know so far" is still premature IMO. We just don't know enough to even really speculate at this point.

I hope AB didn't do it, for a number of reasons including that it's always better if sexual assault didn't happen than if it did. And I'm slightly encouraged by how forcefully his people have come out against this. So I do get where you're coming from, and I'm not trying to call you out or anything because I think your take is reasonable, but I just think even that much is going too far at this point based on what little we know.

Oh great, the Pittsburgh DA will look at the case...Brown made a lot friends down there

ivanvamp said:

You may be taking crap for this perspective, but I think you're right. It's not a comment about whether people are "good" or "bad". I mean, just on one level (which doesn't appear to be an issue in the AB case), the more sex partners you have, the more at-risk you are for a sexually-transmitted disease.

"You’re more likely to get HIV or another STD when you have more than one sex partner, or many sex partners during your lifetime. That’s because more people mean more chances that one or more of them will have HIV or an infection. Ever heard the saying that when you have sex with someone, you’re having sex with everyone they’ve ever had sex with?" (From WebMD)

There are other consequences as well, but I don't want to derail the thread too much.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's pretty much self-evident. You're also considerably less likely to ski into a tree if you don't ski at all, but I'm not really sure that that's a moral indictment of skiing.

Casual, attachment-free sex has existed for longer than humans have, and there's nothing inherently wrong with it. It's riskier than not having casual sex, but that can be said about tons of things. There are a hundred things any one of us will do today that we'd be a little safer if we didn't do them. Like eating a burger or something.

QuantumMechanic said:

There are no rules. When personal conduct is involved it's whatever Roger wants to do. It's in writing from the Federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, for god's sake. NE fans if anyone should know that.

Click to expand...

They don’t and it’s sad. In the other thread you had people arguing that because it’s civil and not criminal it can’t happen

Rob0729 said:

She has a right to be heard and Brown has a right to defend herself. Unfortunately, this could come down to a he said/she said and we will never know for sure who is telling the truth.

Click to expand...

Probably, sad either way. Lets hope goodell* isn't Judge*Jury*Executioner* on this.

IllegalContact said:

there is no new information....the fact that someone is going to look at it at the crime level will also expose the 'victim' to the potential of criminal behavior........I don't believe that was in her plan, otherwise we'd already be there

Click to expand...

Not new information but i haven't seen NFL put someone on exempt list for civil cases. But for criminal cases, they are pretty quick to put them on it. Granted, DA is still "investigating" and haven't filed any criminal charges yet. That's really where I was coming from

vuudu said:

WTF are you talking about? Please explain your comment.
BTW, where did you come from all of a sudden? Hmm.. I wonder, you joined after the Pats lost a Super bowl. I am not accussing you of anything, just listing facts.

Click to expand...

See above. I've been lurking these forums dating prior to the super bowl win against the seahawks. I joined recently a few years ago. But besides the point, it being investigated by DA and IF criminal charges are contemplated, I would think NFL leans towards placing him on exempt list.

Being on exempt list for a few may not be a bad thing. At least he can get up to speed on the offense (even though he can't practice, he can still be in meetings and in facility) without occupying a roster spot.

DaBronxPats14 said:

Probably, sad either way. Lets hope goodell* isn't Judge*Jury*Executioner* on this.

Click to expand...

This is Goodell we are talking about.

JarOfMayo51 said:

Very carefully

Click to expand...

Take it from the jarofmayo?

Brady_to_Moss said:

Just went to a criminal issue now from DA in Pittsburgh now looking into it

Click to expand...

This...I don't get. I have mentioned that a person very close to me went through a horrible rape experience. Was considering her options. We were informed that if she brought it to her college, that the college could do something about it (suspend the guy, expel him, whatever) if they had sufficient evidence, but that it wouldn't go to criminal trial unless she pressed charges.

I don't understand how the cops can just decide to press charges anyway, since that would drag the woman into a criminal case. Maybe she doesn't want that for whatever reason; I know the person I'm referring to in my situation isn't sure she wants to go through that. Do the police just have the freedom, apart from someone pressing charges, to just go ahead with legal proceedings anyway? Even if it means now dragging the woman (who doesn't want to go through this) through the process too, which is EXACTLY what would happen with a competent defense lawyer?

cardiak said:

According to his lawyer this women wanted him to invest $1,600,000 in her gymnast business for black girls and when he had his lawyer look into it he found out that the $1,600,000 was for buying the property that the women and her mom currently own (on loan) and have an outstanding $30,000 tax lien on. He backed out and she went after him and likely used this opportunity to try and make him settle on a small $75,000 cash grab rather then lose millions in his new job.

He also showed and proved that after the last offense in which she claims he actually raped her that she messaged him numerous times and visited his house after hours some times as late as 2:00am and traveled to 4 cities with him as well as continued to promote him on her social media . It wasnt until he refused to invest in her business and buy the property she is going to lose that she turned sour .

Click to expand...

"In excess of $75000" is a legal standard. The award amount requested is likely much more.

At the end of the day one of these people should be in prison.
Her or him.
I'm guessing its her.