Originally posted by SoCold:
Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:
Originally posted by FL9er:
The Browns had to know that this year was probably a throw away year. Very risky contract. Kinda convenient his 1st game is against the Texans.
Yeah, the Browns knew. It's why they structured the 1st year of his contract the wat they did. They suspected that he might be suspended the first year, so the first year of his contract is only $1 million, which really pissed the owners off.
But my question, again, to many calling Watson a "predator" is: if he is indeed a sexual predator, why did TWO grand juries decline to indict him? Grand juries are prosecutors' home turf. We've seen prosecutors use grand juries in some of the most despicable ways, for example, to obfuscate prosecuting obviously guilty law enforcement officers. ("Watch out Batman, it's a trap!"). Grand juries only see only what prosecutors want them to see. If it's true that "prosecutors can indict a ham sandwich", and with SO many women coming forward with allegations of sexual illegalities committed by Watson, how could a prosecutor NOT be able to convince TWO separate grand juries to return a bill of indictment against [trigger warning] a BLACK MAN accused of "me too", "cancel culture"-ready allegations where white women are involved? How could this be? Surely not ALL 20+ women are lying, right? We are living in a time where many men are serving long prison sentences on the sole word of a woman. After all, this is the "me too", "believe all women", "cancel" culture we're living in. What is it about this case, these allegations, that made it so difficult for Watson to not be held criminally accountable? Why didn't "me too", "believe all women", NOT work in court in this case? Why?!?!?
Simple. No video. No solid proof. Just stories. The women they talked to had similar stories. He saw 66 different women. 25 had complaints. None of them reported him at the time they claimed he assaulted them. That's weird. Pretty easy for the same lawyer to coach the women on their stories to earn a payout.
What I want to know is if he asked all 66 for a happy ending or just the 25?
Obviously, the courts (in THIS case) is operating on provable facts. The NFL is operating on "me too" and "believe all women". On the face of it the NFL accepted the 11 games. But in reality they didn't want any part of this getting to court. The details of this case is really bad, not necessarily for Watson, but for the NFL and this "cancel culture", "me too" and "believe all women" reality we're forced to live in. The investigating officer particularly looks horrible. There's a reason why she wasn't called to testify to the 2nd grand jury. It's quite clear that she was operating with the battery in her back placed there by "me too" and "believe all women". From the outset Watson's guilt was a fact in the mind of the investigating officer. According to her own testimony, she believed Watson committed criminal indecent assault and sexual assault before an investigation even took place, based solely on these women's word alone. She presumed Watson to be criminally guilty from the outset ("believe all women").
"Two of them we considered sexual assault because of the way the statute is written that speaks specifically to coercion and we felt that there was enough to insinuate that power and influence was in the room and it was coercive," Baker testified. "And when power and influence is in the room, consent cannot be."
"I start by believing all the victims," Baker replied. "Absolutely. Stand by that 100 percent. Anyone investigating a sex crime should start by believing the complainant. Provided defense provides something that refutes it, we're going to believe that complainant."
That's an incredible position to take for a law enforcement officer, even more incredible is that she openly admitted it.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2022/06/10/deshaun-watson-police-detective-crimes-lawsuits-massages-houston/7586814001/
[Must-read article.]
If many would have gotten their wish, had Watson been suspended the whole season, triggering the NFL PA to sue in federal court, this whole "me too" and "believe all women" culture would have been on trial, and rightfully so. But one of the more troubling things about this case is how people are throwing the word "predator" around in relation to Watson. There's no evidence whatsoever that he preyed on these women. This looks like that Watson got sex from a bunch of women, many likely for money, but consensual, and some of those women just got opportunistic. I suspect that the prosecutor (who had considerably more evidence than the lead detective, as she herself admitted) sniffed this out and wanted no part of a criminal trial. So putting it in the hands of a grand jury washes the prosecutor's hands of it.
This would have been a real mess had the NFL suspended Watson for the whole year. Part of me wishes that they had, though, because "me too" and "believe all women" needs to be put on trial for all the world to see. Men have lost careers, reputations damaged, even gone to jail, based solely on the word of a women. men like myself have resorted to taking the Mike Pence rule to a whole different level. I won't even ride an elevator alone with a women I don't know. At some point this reality has to be indicted and put on trial. If Watson is guilty of anything it's stupidity. And last I looked there's no criminal code for stupidity.