Antonio Brown

shmessy said:

No crime. But they can be cut from their team.

.

Click to expand...

They can be cut from a team for any reason.
Not a good argument to the point that he threatened her, which was the discussion.

shmessy said:

Plenty of threats are legal. So is showing up to a team meeting 5 minutes late.

And plenty of people lose their jobs for making perfectly legal threats.

.

Click to expand...

No they don’t.

JMC00 said:

Except he wasn't. They spent 10 hours with Taylor and they came up with nothing to put him on the list. All that statement says is basically the exempt list isn't off the table. Pats cut him because an incident happened on their watch. He was on a one strike and your out deal, those text messages were the strike.

This is the nfl basically telling teams that it's probably best not to sign him right now. IMO

Click to expand...

Edit deleted.

Regarding the signing bonus, I would think the fact the Pats played Brown the first week after the revelations of the initial sexual assaults and associated lawsuit would negate any conduct claims regarding that issue. Which leaves Wednesday's emails, and I wonder how solid that is as a cause to negate the bonus.

AndyJohnson said:

Well I wasn’t dismissing context, so I will add to what I said.
Show me what he said and the context he used that amounts to threatening.

What I am trying to say is you can’t do that without making a wild assumption.

Click to expand...

Ok but the initial post I was quoting from you specifically said what words are threatening. Nothing about context.

Since you’ve added context:

1. They were in a dispute
2. He copied associates on it ordering them to investigate her.

Those two things automatically make it an attempt to intimidate.

(I will add though that in his stupidity he likely didn’t think that is what he was doing. For one thing he copied his lawyer and he also tried to use cleaner, more coherent language.)

AndyJohnson said:

No it is not. Digging up dirt is perfect legal. Informing someone you are going to do it does not qualify as a threat. Threat involves doing something illegal.

Click to expand...

A lawyer doing research for discovery is different than AB telling one of friends to dig up dirt and snoop around her circles..

Bella*chick said:

Ok but the initial post I was quoting from you specifically said what words are threatening. Nothing about context.

Since you’ve added context:

1. They were in a dispute
2. He copied associates on it ordering them to investigate her.

Those two things automatically make it an attempt to intimidate.

(I will add though that in his stupidity he likely didn’t think that is what he was doing. For one thing he copied his lawyer and he also tried to use cleaner, more coherent language.)

Click to expand...

Agreed. I would add:
3. He copied pictures of her kids, indicating that they should, at the very least, be part of that investigation.

Of course it was an attempt to intimidate her.

And while we are debating about whether or not the text was completely innocent or not, clearly it was viewed by the Pats as serious enough to release him.

vuudu said:

At this point, he needs the game, his lifestyle is so flamboyant that without the game, he will soon be broke and he may in turn get someone to post pictures of this kids laughing at how poor they look.

Click to expand...

raduray said:

Regarding the signing bonus, I would think the fact the Pats played Brown the first week after the revelations of the initial sexual assaults and associated lawsuit would negate any conduct claims regarding that issue. Which leaves Wednesday's emails, and I wonder how solid that is as a cause to negate the bonus.

Click to expand...

Or you could interpret it that the team had every intent to use and pay AB the signing bonus based on how he behaved with the Patriots as was likely the agreement, and his actions with the texts violated their agreement.

Otherwise maybe AB could claim he got cut for previous actions, which wouldn't be in good faith.

Bella*chick said:

Ok but the initial post I was quoting from you specifically said what words are threatening. Nothing about context.

Since you’ve added context:

1. They were in a dispute
2. He copied associates on it ordering them to investigate her.

Those two things automatically make it an attempt to intimidate.

(I will add though that in his stupidity he likely didn’t think that is what he was doing. For one thing he copied his lawyer and he also tried to use cleaner, more coherent language.)

Click to expand...

Investigating is not threatening. Thats really the point here.

Informing her he will investigate her is not a threat.
Calling her poor is not threat.
Texting pictures that she gave him access to is not a threat.

I’m not arguing in favor of what he did, I am saying it is wrong to characterize it as a threat, with the larger point being the story was sensationalized by the media consistently calling it a threat.

lancerman said:

A lawyer doing research for discovery is different than AB telling one of friends to dig up dirt and snoop around her circles..

Click to expand...

It may be different but it is the same in terms of whether it constitutes a threat.
Besides his lawyer was on the text.

Biffins said:

Well that sounds like a legitimate reason to release him. Can’t burden you with sifting through all these news articles.

Click to expand...

Of course that's the idiotic thing you'd infer from my post, as if my being happy he's gone and the reason he's gone have anything to do with one another. Just stupid.

I was wondering why this thread was getting so long so started reading the last couple of pages. I should have guessed that this had turned into an Andy Johnson discussion.

AndyJohnson said:

No it is not. Digging up dirt is perfect legal. Informing someone you are going to do it does not qualify as a threat. Threat involves doing something illegal.

Click to expand...

his wording wasn't even that bad:
"Let’s lok[sic] up her background history see how broke this girl is,”
threat?..hardly.

zydecochris said:

Agreed. I would add:
3. He copied pictures of her kids, indicating that they should, at the very least, be part of that investigation.

Of course it was an attempt to intimidate her.

And while we are debating about whether or not the text was completely innocent or not, clearly it was viewed by the Pats as serious enough to release him.

Click to expand...

Did you actually read the texts?
They start by him saying to her he can’t believe he made that up and must be after her money.
Then he says, he Eric b (not sure if that is attorney or the friend) see this picture, that’s who accused me. she looks broke. We should investigate her and see.

There is nothing that remotely comes close to threatening to cause harm to hurt of her kids or do anything at all illegal.

sambam94 said:

his wording wasn't even that bad:
"Let’s lok[sic] up her background history see how broke this girl is,”
threat?..hardly.

Click to expand...

Right.
And the pictures were, look this is who accused me.

sambam94 said:

his wording wasn't even that bad:
"Let’s lok[sic] up her background history see how broke this girl is,”
threat?..hardly.

Click to expand...

The guy will be playing for the poodle in a couple of weeks. As long as he doesn’t have that flying elvis logo in his jersey.

TruthSeeker said:

I was wondering why this thread was getting so long so started reading the last couple of pages. I should have guessed that this had turned into an Andy Johnson discussion.

Click to expand...

Someone had to bring sense to the topic.

AndyJohnson said:

Right.
And the pictures were, look this is who accused me.

Click to expand...

Seems like the majority on this board think it was a threat.

Question to those that think the texts were an obvious threat.
Would you think the same if the only difference was he didn't post the pic of the 3 of them?