- Joined
- Sep 1, 2010
- Messages
- 30,770
- Reaction score
- 38,008
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments."Witness tampering" requires her to be the witness in a criminal case! He's not going after her for money so extortion doesn't fit. Things can be wrong but also not crimes. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
When you're a party to a criminal or civil trial, you're generally prohibited from directly communicating with any witness, informant, or victim. These rules are in place to protect those who are testifying from harassment or threats, as well as to encourage the free flow of information in court.
It's ridiculous that anyone thinks those private text messages are controversial or newsworthy.
Maybe if he had posted those pictures of her kids PUBLICLY (like on Twitter) that would definitely be crossing the line. But privately? This is a non-story.
I submit that he is, indeed, that stupid.I am in no way defending him but are they sure these are real texts he sent? I just can't imagine anyone being that stupid, while being investigated, every media outlet following his every move, would send out any message to one of these women. If it is indeed a real text from him he definitely has a few screws loose.
Yea but she's lawyered up. Makes no sense.She... specifically said she doesn't intend to seek monetary damages, though. Like explicitly said that.
It actually doesn't require a criminal case. Lol.
Witness Tampering - FindLaw
Since the NFL is currently investigation this civil case, and she's been brought in to give testimony about it, she's a witness to the civil case.
yes, that's exactly what he said..but the media will spin this. Anytime kids are involved, it won't look good.Did you read the messages? He literally said she must be broke because her kids look broke and used the pic as an example. He didn’t say “ these are her kids go look for them.”
Since when is it a crime to text someone who was a source of a magazine writing a negative article about you?
Yea but she's lawyered up. Makes no sense.
Did you read the messages? He literally said she must be broke because her kids look broke and used the pic as an example. He didn’t say “ these are her kids go look for them.”
The NFL Investigation will absolutely be included in the civil lawsuit. And if these witnesses were giving sworn testimony, as the NFL tends to do to cover their ass, they are certainly witnesses to that suit.Last I looked, the NFL isn't a court of law. Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.
that's exactly what he said though..can't be a lousy way to look at itThat's such a lousy way of looking at it.... regardless of the intent or motive behind sending her these texts, it still qualifies as harassment IMO
harassed; harassing; harasses
: to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct
When she is included in the private text chain, it’s a story.It's ridiculous that anyone thinks those private text messages are controversial or newsworthy.
Maybe if he had posted those pictures of her kids PUBLICLY (like on Twitter) that would definitely be crossing the line. But privately? This is a non-story.
Then she should have gone to the police and reported the crime. Not Sports Illustrated and the NFL.That's such a lousy way of looking at it.... regardless of the intent or motive behind sending her these texts, it still qualifies as harassment IMO
harassed; harassing; harasses
: to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct
The NFL Investigation will absolutely be included in the civil lawsuit. And if these witnesses were giving sworn testimony, as the NFL tends to do to cover their ass, they are certainly witnesses to that suit.
Also, you made my original point for me. The NFL isn't a court of law. A court of law is a court of law. If you are threatened, you go through the proper channels to have that adjudicated. Have Brown arrested. Have a Grand Jury, get an indictment. He'll have his day in court, but in the mean time, the 'threatening' will stop.
You've bent over completely backwards justifying this threatened person not going to the police, you know, like anyone else would if they felt threatened.
The NFL Investigation will absolutely be included in the civil lawsuit. And if these witnesses were giving sworn testimony, as the NFL tends to do to cover their ass, they are certainly witnesses to that suit.
Also, you made my original point for me. The NFL isn't a court of law. A court of law is a court of law. If you are threatened, you go through the proper channels to have that adjudicated. Have Brown arrested. Have a Grand Jury, get an indictment. He'll have his day in court, but in the mean time, the 'threatening' will stop.
You've bent over completely backwards justifying this threatened person not going to the police, you know, like anyone else would if they felt threatened.