PDA

View Full Version : Bradley accused of sexual assault; acknowledges confidentiality contract/denies claim



JasonJohnHorn
12-29-2017, 09:15 PM
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/21910429/avery-bradley-detroit-pistons-denies-sexual-assault-allegation-acknowledges-confidentiality-agreement

Thoughts?

Scoots
12-29-2017, 09:25 PM
I think innocent until proven guilty or he pays enough to buy her silence.

JasonJohnHorn
12-29-2017, 10:11 PM
I think innocent until proven guilty or he pays enough to buy her silence.

Obviously this is a he said/she said scenario, but given the current climate, with women speaking out and being heard and listened to (which is what we need), there is going to be an increase in instances where some opportunistic people (who happen to be women) take advantage of the situation. In that case, a man may be inclined to simply agree to a payment to avoid the undue media extravaganza that would invariably follow.


From all outward appearances, this seems to be blackmail. I don't know what happened, nor to I wish to tell victims how to behave (if this woman is indeed a victim which she may very well be).

If you have an issue like this, my feeling is that you would be inclined to go to the police, and then, if you wanted to, follow up with a civil trial.

Here, it seems, she went to the person she would later accuse and got money out of him and agreed to remain silent in exchange for cash. This seems to be a person out for a pay day and not for justice (which doesn't mean she wasn't assaulted or that she was).

What we do know is that she did sign a contract which she subsequently appears to have broken given that the information has been made public. In that sense, it seems that she has already proven herself to be dishonest, and has violated and agreement she has made with Bradley (though this may have come from somebody on Bradley's side). So based on that assumption (which is an assumption and not evidence), it seems that her testimony is questionable.

Bradley, as far as he evidence I have seen this far, has not acted in any way that would suggest he is being dishonest. Most innocent men, in a position of affluence would be inclined, even if innocent, to avoid this publicity because of the current climate. Thus, I don't see anything 'suspicious' about him agreeing to a settlement.

Again... this is a he said/she said, so there is no way to know what happened. However, it seems, on the surface, that though this may certainly be a case of sexual assault, it also follows the pattern of a blackmail attempt.

goingfor28
12-29-2017, 10:37 PM
This **** is getting ridiculous

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

KnickNyKnick
12-30-2017, 12:03 AM
*****es be trippin. tryin to get that Cash anyway possible.

D-Leethal
12-30-2017, 12:30 AM
You think it's bad in politics and media I can't even imagine what some of these hush settlements look like with pro athletes.

Raps18-19 Champ
12-30-2017, 02:11 AM
If you find out he's guilty, ban him from the league for a year.

MILLERHIGHLIFE
12-30-2017, 11:42 AM
Queue in the episode of KOBE for the Dave Chappelle's show. Checking the boxes and what not.

IndyRealist
12-30-2017, 12:26 PM
Obviously this is a he said/she said scenario, but given the current climate, with women speaking out and being heard and listened to (which is what we need), there is going to be an increase in instances where some opportunistic people (who happen to be women) take advantage of the situation. In that case, a man may be inclined to simply agree to a payment to avoid the undue media extravaganza that would invariably follow.


From all outward appearances, this seems to be blackmail. I don't know what happened, nor to I wish to tell victims how to behave (if this woman is indeed a victim which she may very well be).

If you have an issue like this, my feeling is that you would be inclined to go to the police, and then, if you wanted to, follow up with a civil trial.

Here, it seems, she went to the person she would later accuse and got money out of him and agreed to remain silent in exchange for cash. This seems to be a person out for a pay day and not for justice (which doesn't mean she wasn't assaulted or that she was).

What we do know is that she did sign a contract which she subsequently appears to have broken given that the information has been made public. In that sense, it seems that she has already proven herself to be dishonest, and has violated and agreement she has made with Bradley (though this may have come from somebody on Bradley's side). So based on that assumption (which is an assumption and not evidence), it seems that her testimony is questionable.

Bradley, as far as he evidence I have seen this far, has not acted in any way that would suggest he is being dishonest. Most innocent men, in a position of affluence would be inclined, even if innocent, to avoid this publicity because of the current climate. Thus, I don't see anything 'suspicious' about him agreeing to a settlement.

Again... this is a he said/she said, so there is no way to know what happened. However, it seems, on the surface, that though this may certainly be a case of sexual assault, it also follows the pattern of a blackmail attempt.

"Obviously this is he said/she said, but she likely a ho.". You spent like half a sentence saying he could have actually raped her and 6 paragraphs going on about how she could be extorting him. Obvious bias is obvious.

No, it's he said/she said, there's no indication that SHE was the one the broke the confidentiality, and it doesn't make the slightest bit of sense for her to come out after agreeing to keep quiet. Once it becomes public she has no ability to blackmail anyone. It could have been his lawyer, or his buddies, or one of her friends, who leaked the info to TMZ.

hugepatsfan
12-30-2017, 12:36 PM
I always thought AB was a terrific person so I'd actually be pretty "hurt" if this is true. IDK, hurt is a strong word but you guys know what I mean. I'll wait for more info though.

Hawkeye15
12-30-2017, 01:42 PM
Part of me is ok with this witch hunt going on that is a direct result of men in power abusing it over the years. The other part of me also realizes people suck, and I guarantee many of these women simply want a payout.

Each case is different, whether you are a politician, athlete, CEO, or regular joe. I guess we wait and see on Bradley specifically.

JasonJohnHorn
12-30-2017, 06:57 PM
"Obviously this is he said/she said, but she likely a ho.". You spent like half a sentence saying he could have actually raped her and 6 paragraphs going on about how she could be extorting him. Obvious bias is obvious.

No, it's he said/she said, there's no indication that SHE was the one the broke the confidentiality, and it doesn't make the slightest bit of sense for her to come out after agreeing to keep quiet. Once it becomes public she has no ability to blackmail anyone. It could have been his lawyer, or his buddies, or one of her friends, who leaked the info to TMZ.

That is a total mischariterization of what I wrote and you know it.

Obviously, given that I suggest this looks like an instance of blackmail from outward appearances, I explain that position. But I also clearly state that either side could be telling the truth, and reiterate several times that I don't know what happened and that the woman could very easily be a victim here.

I never call anybody a ho or used disrespectful language like that (that's your strawman argument).


I also never said that she DID break the confidentiality agreement, but that it appears that she has given that the information became public. You are suggesting it could have been one of Bradley's friends. Sure. But we don't even know that any of them know about this, and given that he had her sign a contract to keep it under wraps, it seems unlikely that he would go around talking about it. Then you suggest it may be one of her friends. And how did her friend hear about it? The lawyer? Sure. That's possible A laywer who wants to be disbarred and never work in his/her profession again?

I used the word 'appears' and 'seems'. I did not make statements of facts. My observations were based on the facts as we know them to be. It is unlikely that this initial release came from a lawyer on either side because lawyers know that their silence is key to their career and is a LEGAL obligation. I don't see either side's laywer risking their repective careers to spread a rumour to TMZ about a rotation player in the NBA playing on a potential lottery team. Somebody on his side? Give that he's paying to keep it silent, I don't see that as likely either. Though both are possible, they seem highly unlikely in this context. Hence my use of the words 'seems' and 'appears'.

Here's what we KNOW happened. Somebody went to somebody else and made an accusation that they agreed to keep quiet in exchange for money. Those are quantifiable facts. Everything else is he said/she said. So yes, from outward appearances, that seems more like an instance of blackmail, I position I explained, but also conceded may not be correct.

That's not a bias. That's an explanation of how I think the facts currently look.

But you go ahead with your reactionary and thoughtless strawman argument and use of derogatory words like 'ho'. But remember, you're the one using them, not me.


As it currently stands, people can be accused in public and have their reputatins destroyed without evidence while the people making the accusations get to hide in anonimity. I agree that victims should be protected, and so keeping accusers anonymous is crucial in these cases, but as the accusatins ARE false in some instancs, we don't actually know who the 'victim' is until all the evidence has been weighed. Thus, I think both the accused and accusor should be kept anonymous until all the evidence has been weighed or unless overwhelming evidence has been provided.

Thus, I think it is important to consider both sides of issues like this. Since Bradley has already been publicly accused, I think it is important to consider the other side.

You think it's important to be a reactionary @$$#013 who puts words in other people's mouths.

R. Johnson#3
12-30-2017, 08:23 PM
I mean, when you need to get someone to sign a confidentiality agreement after sex it's normally not a good sign.

IndyRealist
12-30-2017, 10:20 PM
1....there is going to be an increase in instances where some opportunistic people (who happen to be women) take advantage of the situation.

2...From all outward appearances, this seems to be blackmail.

3....This seems to be a person out for a pay day and not for justice (which doesn't mean she wasn't assaulted or that she was).

4..... which she subsequently appears to have broken given that the information has been made public. In that sense, it seems that she has already proven herself to be dishonest.

5....Most innocent men, in a position of affluence would be inclined, even if innocent, to avoid this publicity because of the current climate.


And then there's this:

I don't know what happened, nor to I wish to tell victims how to behave (if this woman is indeed a victim which she may very well be).

If you have an issue like this, my feeling is that you would be inclined to go to the police, and then, if you wanted to, follow up with a civil trial.

Most victims do not want to be dragged through a public criminal trial in a he said/she said, where people are going to presume she's out for a payday, where lawyers are going to say she was asking for it, that she's a ****, etc. All that happens to Kobe's accuser to this day AND HE ADMITTED HE RAPED HER. Accusers get branded for the rest of their lives. THAT is why settlements happen.

Vinylman
12-30-2017, 11:14 PM
I mean, when you need to get someone to sign a confidentiality agreement after sex it's normally not a good sign.

I always get my CA's signed up front...

Vinylman
12-30-2017, 11:21 PM
And then there's this:


Most victims do not want to be dragged through a public criminal trial in a he said/she said, where people are going to presume she's out for a payday, where lawyers are going to say she was asking for it, that she's a ****, etc. All that happens to Kobe's accuser to this day AND HE ADMITTED HE RAPED HER. Accusers get branded for the rest of their lives. THAT is why settlements happen.

Kobe never admitted he raped anyone... you are doing exactly what you are accusing him of doing...

IndyRealist
12-30-2017, 11:26 PM
Kobe never admitted he raped anyone... you are doing exactly what you are accusing him of doing...


First, I want to apologize directly to the young woman involved in this incident. I want to apologize to her for my behavior that night and for the consequences she has suffered in the past year. Although this year has been incredibly difficult for me personally, I can only imagine the pain she has had to endure. I also want to apologize to her parents and family members, and to my family and friends and supporters, and to the citizens of Eagle, Colorado. I also want to make it clear that I do not question the motives of this young woman. No money has been paid to this woman. She has agreed that this statement will not be used against me in the civil case. Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter. I issue this statement today fully aware that while one part of this case ends today, another remains. I understand that the civil case against me will go forward. That part of this case will be decided by and between the parties directly involved in the incident and will no longer be a financial or emotional drain on the citizens of the state of Colorado.
https://www.thenation.com/article/wrestling-in-with-kobe-bryants-forgotten-apology/

Raps18-19 Champ
12-31-2017, 03:08 AM
I mean, when you need to get someone to sign a confidentiality agreement after sex it's normally not a good sign.

I hear a confidentiality agreement is a common thing when hooking up with celebrities.

Vinylman
12-31-2017, 02:45 PM
https://www.thenation.com/article/wrestling-in-with-kobe-bryants-forgotten-apology/

That isn't admitting rape... its called a settlement agreement...

jesus you are daft

IndyRealist
12-31-2017, 04:38 PM
That isn't admitting rape... its called a settlement agreement...

jesus you are daft

This was after the criminal trial, and excluded from the civil case. It had nothing to do with the settlement. Read the article. He acknowledges she did not consent, those are his words. He raped her. Stop making excuses and trying to rewrite history.

GREATNESS ONE
12-31-2017, 04:43 PM
History? That chick had like 7 dudes semen in her :laugh2: she knew what she was doing.

IndyRealist
12-31-2017, 04:44 PM
History? That chick had like 7 dudes semen in her :laugh2: she knew what she was doing.

^ and there's the idiot that proves everything I've said.

Vinylman
12-31-2017, 04:56 PM
This was after the criminal trial, and excluded from the civil case. It had nothing to do with the settlement. Read the article. He acknowledges she did not consent, those are his words. He raped her. Stop making excuses and trying to rewrite history.

criminal trial? dude you are ******* clueless ... there was no criminal trial

the criminal charges were dismissed prior to any trial and the statement does not say he raped her... he clearly states that he believes the encounter was consensual... read the sentence before your highlighted portion... that is not the statement of a person saying they raped someone...

If he actually said he raped her there WOULD have been a criminal trial...

try and understand how the legal system works... the statement was nothing but a precursor to a civil settlement. In fact it was done to get on the record that she Hadn't been paid anything so that prosecutors couldn't say he paid her off so she wouldn't testify in the criminal case...

The details of the night are pretty straightforward and to characterize the encounter as rape is beyond ridiculous.

GREATNESS ONE
12-31-2017, 05:00 PM
"Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter."

He says, he understands why she views it differently. He does not say I raped the *****.

and name calling? really.

GREATNESS ONE
12-31-2017, 05:01 PM
criminal trial? dude you are ******* clueless ... there was no criminal trial

the criminal charges were dismissed prior to any trial and the statement does not say he raped her... he clearly states that he believes the encounter was consensual... read the sentence before your highlighted portion... that is not the statement of a person saying they raped someone...

If he actually said he raped her there WOULD have been a criminal trial...

try and understand how the legal system works... the statement was nothing but a precursor to a civil settlement. In fact it was done to get on the record that she Hadn't been paid anything so that prosecutors couldn't say he paid her off so she wouldn't testify in the criminal case...

The details of the night are pretty straightforward and to characterize the encounter as rape is beyond ridiculous.

do you ever get tired slaying people? :laugh2:

IndyRealist
12-31-2017, 05:09 PM
"Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter."

He says, he understands why she views it differently. He does not say I raped the *****.

and name calling? really.

Nonconsensual sex = rape. This is not difficult.

mrblisterdundee
12-31-2017, 06:03 PM
I mean, when you need to get someone to sign a confidentiality agreement after sex it's normally not a good sign.

Bingo. This could be several different situations. The woman could be a gold digger. Bradley could be a sexual predator. Maybe he just didn't want his wife to know he was screwing around. It's all hearsay.
But there seems to be a clear bias among sports fans toward more often blaming the woman. It's troubling, considering the well-documented history of athletes at all levels and sports treating women like garbage at a particularly high rate.

Vinylman
12-31-2017, 06:44 PM
do you ever get tired slaying people? :laugh2:

never ... however, it is fairly tedious and tiring to be honest...

IndyRealist
12-31-2017, 08:12 PM
never ... however, it is fairly tedious and tiring to be honest...

Your boy just suggested that a woman who had sex with more than one person automatically agrees to have sex with everyone and cannot be raped. You should seriously consider who and what you're agreeing with.

I hope you gave him consent before what he did there. I know you guys are having problems with the concept.

GREATNESS ONE
12-31-2017, 08:37 PM
Bryant’s defense team, on the other hand, brought up the accuser’s past sexual history. The accuser stated that she’d had consensual sex on June 27 or 28, and when the panties she wore to her medical exam the following day were tested, they found semen and a hair follicle that did not belong to Bryant. These were, for clarification purposes, a separate pair of panties she put on and wore to her exam—not the panties from the night in question, which were collected and tested separately—and the accuser claimed she’d accidentally put on a pair of dirty panties for the exam. Bryant’s defense team claimed that the vaginal trauma suffered by the accuser could have been from having “multiple partners” in a short time span, though Det. Winters had testified that a nurse told him the injuries had likely occurred in the past 24 hours.


:yawn: you’re funny with “your boy” and the lil cyber jabs. It’s whatever, I really don’t care. All I know is these Ho’s kno what they’re doin.

Raps18-19 Champ
12-31-2017, 08:47 PM
Yea, that girl was looking for Kobe so Kobe really in the clear with regards to that. He's just a scumbag for cheating.

JasonJohnHorn
12-31-2017, 09:05 PM
And then there's this:


Most victims do not want to be dragged through a public criminal trial in a he said/she said, where people are going to presume she's out for a payday, where lawyers are going to say she was asking for it, that she's a ****, etc. All that happens to Kobe's accuser to this day AND HE ADMITTED HE RAPED HER. Accusers get branded for the rest of their lives. THAT is why settlements happen.

These are fair comments and not inconsistent with what I said. If you had simply written this in response to my first comment, I would have happily agreed. However, instead you mischaracterized my comments.

That said... accusers are provided with anonymity; the accused is not. I'll happily agree that wealthy men in a position of power are likely to abuse that power; I'll also concede that men with money and affluence are more likely to be targets of false claims/blackmail. Either could be the case here.

I also agree that defensive lawyers of question the accusor/victim because that, unfortnately, is essentially their job. However, we have to start looking at this issue from both sides. How is is NOT ok to accuser somebody of lying in public, but it IS ok to accuse somebody of being a rapist?

This is a difficult conversation to have because it is important that women's and victims voices be heard. However, it is also important that we have a fair ane equitable justice system. The current media climate quickly turns into a witch hunt and practically convicts people when there isn't even a criminal or civil trial. I think that with respect to accusations, both accusers and accused should remain anonymous unless there is overwheling evidence.

That is not an unreasonable position.

JasonJohnHorn
12-31-2017, 09:18 PM
That isn't admitting rape... its called a settlement agreement...

jesus you are daft

Kobe wrote:
"I also want to make it clear that I do not question the motives of this young woman. No money has been paid to this woman. She has agreed that this statement will not be used against me in the civil case. Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter."

I'm not sure if you know how 'settlements' work, but they SELDOM involve the party paying out admitting to wrongdoing (see the Avery Bradley pay out or asked anybody who has recieved a settlement for wrongful dismissal; they almost always say that the party admits to no wrong doing).

Kobe concedes that he misread her. He admits she did not consent, though he interpeted her actions as consent and he believed that he had consent.

This is the case of willful assault, and miscommunication, but either way, Kobe is apologizing (you don't apologize for doing nothing wrong) and recognizes that she did not provide consent from her view, which is the only view that should fawking matter since it is her fawking body.

JasonJohnHorn
12-31-2017, 09:24 PM
History? That chick had like 7 dudes semen in her :laugh2: she knew what she was doing.



He says, he understands why she views it differently. He does not say I raped the *****.

and name calling? really.

Ugh... this is a patehtic post. Laughing at her and saying she had "like 7 dudes semen in her", and the bemoaning that IndyRealist used name calling while you referred to her as a b!tch?

IndyRealist was justified is saying that because your response was truly idiotic. Her sexual past has nothing to do with the assault, and the number you put forward is unsubstiated and false. I do recall reports that noted she had other sexual activity that day, but that doesn't mean Kobe gets to do whatever he wants with her.

That is exactly the moronic kind of mentality that we need to move away from.

Thank you IndyRealist for being putting up the good fight here.

GREATNESS ONE
12-31-2017, 10:09 PM
sheep

GREATNESS ONE
12-31-2017, 10:10 PM
Lol ok. They’re all victims. Let’s worry about the real problems on this planet.

GREATNESS ONE
12-31-2017, 10:18 PM
Kobe wrote:
"I also want to make it clear that I do not question the motives of this young woman. No money has been paid to this woman. She has agreed that this statement will not be used against me in the civil case. Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter."

I'm not sure if you know how 'settlements' work, but they SELDOM involve the party paying out admitting to wrongdoing (see the Avery Bradley pay out or asked anybody who has recieved a settlement for wrongful dismissal; they almost always say that the party admits to no wrong doing).

Kobe concedes that he misread her. He admits she did not consent, though he interpeted her actions as consent and he believed that he had consent.

This is the case of willful assault, and miscommunication, but either way, Kobe is apologizing (you don't apologize for doing nothing wrong) and recognizes that she did not provide consent from her view, which is the only view that should fawking matter since it is her fawking body.

Your bold left out the part of the sentence “I now UNDERSTAND how she feels” not once does he admit guilt and this **** was so consensual. But yea guess it’s time trendy now with sexual predators and victims.

Vinylman
01-02-2018, 08:44 AM
Your boy just suggested that a woman who had sex with more than one person automatically agrees to have sex with everyone and cannot be raped. You should seriously consider who and what you're agreeing with.

I hope you gave him consent before what he did there. I know you guys are having problems with the concept.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL


Can't deal with the direct beat down I gave you so you come up with some lame strawman on "what I am agreeing with"

Your a joke dude... and he never admitted or said he RAPED HER which is what you posted

like I said ... the only one misleading people in this thread is you with your BS

try and stay focused on what people actually post rather than diversion tactics to change the subject... I haven't said one thing about the female involved in the Colorado incident...

Vinylman
01-02-2018, 08:48 AM
Kobe wrote:
"I also want to make it clear that I do not question the motives of this young woman. No money has been paid to this woman. She has agreed that this statement will not be used against me in the civil case. Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter."

I'm not sure if you know how 'settlements' work, but they SELDOM involve the party paying out admitting to wrongdoing (see the Avery Bradley pay out or asked anybody who has recieved a settlement for wrongful dismissal; they almost always say that the party admits to no wrong doing).

Kobe concedes that he misread her. He admits she did not consent, though he interpeted her actions as consent and he believed that he had consent.

This is the case of willful assault, and miscommunication, but either way, Kobe is apologizing (you don't apologize for doing nothing wrong) and recognizes that she did not provide consent from her view, which is the only view that should fawking matter since it is her fawking body.

Another amateur enters the fray...

of course you wouldn't post the entire statement because the very first point is against your narrative...

quit disseminating half truths on the internet...

You can believe what you want but quit trying to change the record by not providing it all...

People can handle the truth... let them decide by providing all the information ... not your half truth agenda driven drivel

IndyRealist
01-02-2018, 09:31 AM
LOLOLOLOLOLOL


Can't deal with the direct beat down I gave you so you come up with some lame strawman on "what I am agreeing with"

Your a joke dude... and he never admitted or said he RAPED HER which is what you posted

like I said ... the only one misleading people in this thread is you with your BS

try and stay focused on what people actually post rather than diversion tactics to change the subject... I haven't said one thing about the female involved in the Colorado incident...

Gawd the two of you are willfully blind. Kobe acknowledges she did not consent to sex. Nonconsensual sex is rape. Where I'm struggling is with the mental gymnastics you have to go through to continue to defend a man of something he admitted to.

And yes, you really should be looking at what he's saying.

IndyRealist
01-02-2018, 10:27 AM
Ok I'm genuinely curious. What do you think this quote means?

"Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter."

Scoots
01-02-2018, 10:43 AM
If Kobe NOW understands she didn't consent then he NOW understands that he raped her. I don't know that that means that he admits to rape at the moment since the intent and understanding were not there at the time. That's a legal argument I'm not capable of parsing. Morally he raped her but supposedly he didn't know it.

I think we, as a society, are over-parsing language looking for bias and taking such assumptions as proof of someone's "real position" rather than taking their word for it. I have 3 sisters and 2 daughters and we all agree the biggest issue in stopping sexual assault is the people who lie in some ways do more damage than a single person who commits a sexual assault. As a society we've lost the plot where a woman doesn't feel like she'd be protected by people around her and the police if she slaps someone who grabs her ***. We are more likely to call the police about a neighbor than going and talking to the neighbor ourselves. Manners only happen when it possible someone will be called on their bad manners immediately and publicly, but that only works when the person calling them out is trustworthy. It makes me sad.

ewing
01-02-2018, 10:46 AM
Ok I'm genuinely curious. What do you think this quote means?

"Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter."

It means that what his publicist wrote for him. I think the writers intent was for him to come off as apologizing and acknowledging her viewpoint, while not really admitting to something.

IndyRealist
01-02-2018, 11:03 AM
If Kobe NOW understands she didn't consent then he NOW understands that he raped her. I don't know that that means that he admits to rape at the moment since the intent and understanding were not there at the time. That's a legal argument I'm not capable of parsing. Morally he raped her but supposedly he didn't know it.

I think we, as a society, are over-parsing language looking for bias and taking such assumptions as proof of someone's "real position" rather than taking their word for it. I have 3 sisters and 2 daughters and we all agree the biggest issue in stopping sexual assault is the people who lie in some ways do more damage than a single person who commits a sexual assault. As a society we've lost the plot where a woman doesn't feel like she'd be protected by people around her and the police if she slaps someone who grabs her ***. We are more likely to call the police about a neighbor than going and talking to the neighbor ourselves. Manners only happen when it possible someone will be called on their bad manners immediately and publicly, but that only works when the person calling them out is trustworthy. It makes me sad.

She didn't consent. He knows that now. That is not up for debate. So if a woman flirts with a man, and he presumes she wants to have sex, it doesn't matter if she actually does?

Scoots
01-02-2018, 11:33 AM
She didn't consent. He knows that now. That is not up for debate. So if a woman flirts with a man, and he presumes she wants to have sex, it doesn't matter if she actually does?

It matters to intent.

IndyRealist
01-02-2018, 11:54 AM
It matters to intent.

It seems the prevailing notion here is that if the man thinks she wants to have sex, regardless of whether she does, then it's not rape?

IndyRealist
01-02-2018, 12:13 PM
"Sexual Assault – Knowingly sexually penetrating or sexually intruding upon a victim by any of the following means:
The defendant:
Causes the victim to submit against his or her will"

Notice it does not say anything about the intent of the perpetrator. If she does not consent, it's rape. NOT "if he thought she consented then it's ok"

hugepatsfan
01-02-2018, 01:20 PM
"Sexual Assault – Knowingly sexually penetrating or sexually intruding upon a victim by any of the following means:
The defendant:
Causes the victim to submit against his or her will"

Notice it does not say anything about the intent of the perpetrator. If she does not consent, it's rape. NOT "if he thought she consented then it's ok"

Now let's step out of the dictionary and try some real world application...

What if she doesn't consent but never communicates that. Imagine an NBA player talking to a girl in a hotel. He leans in for a kiss. The girl feels powerless to turn him down because he's an NBA player. He says let's go back to my room. She doesn't want to, but again she feels powerless to turn him down. She doesn't want to have sex with him but she feels too powerless to say no. So she goes up to the room and hooks up. She doesn't want to and in her head she feels forced into the action but it was never physical and she never put up any fight or said to stop. But she doesn't consent to the act, she's just scared to express that.

Is that rape?

Scoots
01-02-2018, 01:40 PM
It seems the prevailing notion here is that if the man thinks she wants to have sex, regardless of whether she does, then it's not rape?

No. If she doesn't want it it's rape.

IndyRealist
01-02-2018, 01:45 PM
Now let's step out of the dictionary and try some real world application...

What if she doesn't consent but never communicates that. Imagine an NBA player talking to a girl in a hotel. He leans in for a kiss. The girl feels powerless to turn him down because he's an NBA player. He says let's go back to my room. She doesn't want to, but again she feels powerless to turn him down. She doesn't want to have sex with him but she feels too powerless to say no. So she goes up to the room and hooks up. She doesn't want to and in her head she feels forced into the action but it was never physical and she never put up any fight or said to stop. But she doesn't consent to the act, she's just scared to express that.

Is that rape?

That's not from the dictionary, it's from Colorado's statute on sexual assault.

Scoots
01-02-2018, 01:50 PM
That's not from the dictionary, it's from Colorado's statute on sexual assault.

But you've got to admit that if you are trying to convince a jury it matters if she never said no.

hugepatsfan
01-02-2018, 01:53 PM
That's not from the dictionary, it's from Colorado's statute on sexual assault.

Honestly that doesn't really change my point. Rape isn't just a guy holding a girl down with a gun and saying **** me or else. The lines of consent are a lot more blurred than that. What if a girl is too drunk to give consent in a legal sense but she's functional enough to do it in the present to where there was nothing sketchy or weird about it all? What about the scenario I described above? There's so much more gray area in some of these things than people realize. Part of why it's such a challenge to get right.

IndyRealist
01-02-2018, 02:36 PM
But you've got to admit that if you are trying to convince a jury it matters if she never said no.

I mean, it shouldn't matter that he's a 6'6" black athlete, but to a jury it could. The statue says consent or it's rape.

IndyRealist
01-02-2018, 02:40 PM
Honestly that doesn't really change my point. Rape isn't just a guy holding a girl down with a gun and saying **** me or else. The lines of consent are a lot more blurred than that. What if a girl is too drunk to give consent in a legal sense but she's functional enough to do it in the present to where there was nothing sketchy or weird about it all? What about the scenario I described above? There's so much more gray area in some of these things than people realize. Part of why it's such a challenge to get right.

Legally, you need consent or it's rape. If she's drunk, it's rape. In Colorado, there is no requirement that the victim fight back, or resist, or say no. Some places there are, while that's tragic it highlights how unambiguous Colorado law is.

mightybosstone
01-02-2018, 03:00 PM
Based on the information in the article, it's kind of impossible to have an opinion on this one way or the other unless you're bringing preconceived notions into this. Without more info, I'm not going to make any assumptions whatsoever about Bradley or the woman. Anyone willing to lock Bradley up as a rapist or publicly accuse the woman of blackmailing him is doing so based on no evidence whatsoever to support either claim.

That's the biggest problem with this movement right now: people are willing to damn one side or the other in many cases without hardly any evidence.

ewing
01-02-2018, 03:55 PM
Legally, you need consent or it's rape. If she's drunk, it's rape. In Colorado, there is no requirement that the victim fight back, or resist, or say no. Some places there are, while that's tragic it highlights how unambiguous Colorado law is.

What if she is dead?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

hugepatsfan
01-02-2018, 04:08 PM
Legally, you need consent or it's rape. If she's drunk, it's rape. In Colorado, there is no requirement that the victim fight back, or resist, or say no. Some places there are, while that's tragic it highlights how unambiguous Colorado law is.

So what constitutes there being no consent. Again, what if the girl doesn't consent but feels powerless to turn the man down. Is she consenting or not there? What does it mean to consent? What does it mean to not consent? You asked earlier how someone could release a statement saying they thought the person consented but then learned they didn't. It's not always black and white is my point.

LeonFSU
01-02-2018, 04:42 PM
Honestly that doesn't really change my point. Rape isn't just a guy holding a girl down with a gun and saying **** me or else. The lines of consent are a lot more blurred than that. What if a girl is too drunk to give consent in a legal sense but she's functional enough to do it in the present to where there was nothing sketchy or weird about it all? What about the scenario I described above? There's so much more gray area in some of these things than people realize. Part of why it's such a challenge to get right.

Rape

WaDe03
01-02-2018, 05:14 PM
Some $500,000 *****? It better have been fire!

hugepatsfan
01-02-2018, 05:26 PM
Rape

So if I go on Tinder and score a date with a girl, we go out for dinner, she gets 2 vodka sodas, we go back to my place and hook up. In your mind I'm a rapist?

LeonFSU
01-02-2018, 05:43 PM
So if I go on Tinder and score a date with a girl, we go out for dinner, she gets 2 vodka sodas, we go back to my place and hook up. In your mind I'm a rapist?

States define rape (either in statutes or by reference to common law crimes or both). Consent is legally impossible if she's intoxicated. So, if she's intoxicated, then it's rape. There is no gray area there. I understand there may be gray area in terms of what consent is in certain situations, but the one you describe, where the victim is intoxicated, is not one of those situations.

My "mind" does not define what rape is. I can come up with a definition and maybe it'll make it to Urban Dictionary. Maybe what you're asking is whether what you describe is "immoral?"

Scoots
01-02-2018, 06:21 PM
I mean, it shouldn't matter that he's a 6'6" black athlete, but to a jury it could. The statue says consent or it's rape.

Does it? It says she has to express it specifically?

Scoots
01-02-2018, 06:22 PM
States define rape (either in statutes or by reference to common law crimes or both). Consent is legally impossible if she's intoxicated. So, if she's intoxicated, then it's rape. There is no gray area there. I understand there may be gray area in terms of what consent is in certain situations, but the one you describe, where the victim is intoxicated, is not one of those situations.

My "mind" does not define what rape is. I can come up with a definition and maybe it'll make it to Urban Dictionary. Maybe what you're asking is whether what you describe is "immoral?"

So then how do you define intoxicated? Driving legal limit?

Scoots
01-02-2018, 06:25 PM
What if she is dead?

Then she can't enter a contract either way and she'd be property so you'd need to get consent of her owner.

LeonFSU
01-02-2018, 06:37 PM
So then how do you define intoxicated? Driving legal limit?

Each state would define intoxication differently, but its likely a higher threshold than the legal driving limit.

IndyRealist
01-02-2018, 07:12 PM
Does it? It says she has to express it specifically?

It says unwilling, or unable to consent, among other things (like impairment, position of authority, etc.) If a person did not consent, then they are saying no by default. If there is no legal presumption of sex for married people, there isn't for non married people.

Scoots
01-02-2018, 08:39 PM
It says unwilling, or unable to consent, among other things (like impairment, position of authority, etc.) If a person did not consent, then they are saying no by default. If there is no legal presumption of sex for married people, there isn't for non married people.

Unable to consent is fairly clear, but the rest is not. If there is no force or implied force used and all of the interactions are generally nice and positive and the second party responds physically to each action taken by the first party, but the second party never actually said "please f me" and then later says they were not consenting in their heart is that rape? I'm not sure that's a reasonable standard. For a lot of boys the way you discover if she is okay with you kissing her is by kissing her, the way you find out if she's okay with first base is by trying for first and seeing if she turns you away ... if she doesn't turn the boy away that was considered implied consent. My point is that this is not a black and white issue when you are right on that line.

IndyRealist
01-03-2018, 09:26 AM
Unable to consent is fairly clear, but the rest is not. If there is no force or implied force used and all of the interactions are generally nice and positive and the second party responds physically to each action taken by the first party, but the second party never actually said "please f me" and then later says they were not consenting in their heart is that rape? I'm not sure that's a reasonable standard. For a lot of boys the way you discover if she is okay with you kissing her is by kissing her, the way you find out if she's okay with first base is by trying for first and seeing if she turns you away ... if she doesn't turn the boy away that was considered implied consent. My point is that this is not a black and white issue when you are right on that line.

It is very black and white, legally. If you do not get consent, you are in fact running the risk of her saying she didn't want to later. Get consent, problem solved. There is NO IMPLIED CONSENT.

Vinylman
01-03-2018, 09:47 AM
Gawd the two of you are willfully blind. Kobe acknowledges she did not consent to sex. Nonconsensual sex is rape. Where I'm struggling is with the mental gymnastics you have to go through to continue to defend a man of something he admitted to.

And yes, you really should be looking at what he's saying.

wrong again... he acknowledged her perspective on the events... he never agreed with her perspective.

Your inability to understand that is mind numbing

Vinylman
01-03-2018, 09:51 AM
It means that what his publicist wrote for him. I think the writers intent was for him to come off as apologizing and acknowledging her viewpoint, while not really admitting to something.

bingo... he doesn't believe it (her perspective)... it was expediency to avoid the trial and set up her civil settlement

Whether he raped her or not I have no idea... What I do know is that he never admitted he raped her which is what Indy has contended from the beginning. it is factually incorrect

IndyRealist
01-03-2018, 10:15 AM
bingo... he doesn't believe it (her perspective)... it was expediency to avoid the trial and set up her civil settlement

Whether he raped her or not I have no idea... What I do know is that he never admitted he raped her which is what Indy has contended from the beginning. it is factually incorrect

"I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did"

She did not consent. He acknowledges rhat. That makes it rape. WHAT HE THOUGHT IS IRRELEVANT, because she did not consent.

Vinylman
01-03-2018, 10:51 AM
"I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did"

She did not consent. He acknowledges rhat. That makes it rape. WHAT HE THOUGHT IS IRRELEVANT, because she did not consent.

again... you said he admitted raping her... he didn't

quit changing your argument... did he or didn't he admit raping her... if you say yes there is nothing to talk about... you are simply wrong

quit evolving your position

IndyRealist
01-03-2018, 11:03 AM
again... you said he admitted raping her... he didn't

quit changing your argument... did he or didn't he admit raping her... if you say yes there is nothing to talk about... you are simply wrong

quit evolving your position

He acknowledges that she did not consent. He is admitting to rape. He thought she wanted to, she did not. That's rape. He didn't go in saying "I'm going to rape this girl." Doesn't mean it's not rape.

hugepatsfan
01-03-2018, 11:10 AM
How is consent defined? With a lot of these #metoo stories coming out we're seeing that lines get blurred sometimes. It's not always the guy forcing the girl down. A lot of these stories are woman saying they just felt too powerless to say no. I know in the Louis CK stuff he even asked the girls if he could jack off in front of them. They said yes but were too scared to say no. Is that consent?

With people just opening up more on this stuff I think even the things that people thought were black and white are getting blurred.

ewing
01-03-2018, 11:37 AM
I not sure what happened with this girl but he raped the Pacers in 2000

Scoots
01-03-2018, 11:45 AM
bingo... he doesn't believe it (her perspective)... it was expediency to avoid the trial and set up her civil settlement

Whether he raped her or not I have no idea... What I do know is that he never admitted he raped her which is what Indy has contended from the beginning. it is factually incorrect

I've got to agree with Indy here. It was a backhanded way to do it but Kobe said he now knows she hadn't consented which means he now knows he raped her. That doesn't mean he admits knowing it at the time of the event which is where this all falls apart.

Scoots
01-03-2018, 11:51 AM
How is consent defined? With a lot of these #metoo stories coming out we're seeing that lines get blurred sometimes. It's not always the guy forcing the girl down. A lot of these stories are woman saying they just felt too powerless to say no. I know in the Louis CK stuff he even asked the girls if he could jack off in front of them. They said yes but were too scared to say no. Is that consent?

With people just opening up more on this stuff I think even the things that people thought were black and white are getting blurred.

This is my issue as well. There are some colleges that require written consent before sex which seems kind of insane but it at least makes it clear beforehand while also illustrating that the he said she said stuff has gotten so out of hand they had to institute this policy.

If you don't actively protect your trademark/patent you lose the right to protect it ... and while it seems callus I think, as a father of daughters, that it's important that people be told regularly that they need to SAY "NO" if they want the person they are with to stop. They need to be physical to stop what's happening while saying "NO" and "STOP". If they are going to a room, kissing, groping, disrobing, and moving in encouraging ways they are "saying" one thing and that's "YES" ... I think "NO" needs to be just as clear if not more so.

Scoots
01-03-2018, 12:00 PM
It is very black and white, legally. If you do not get consent, you are in fact running the risk of her saying she didn't want to later. Get consent, problem solved. There is NO IMPLIED CONSENT.

Written consent solves the problem, but lack of it doesn't mean it was rape even if she says so after the fact.

It's anecdotal evidence and thus fairly worthless, but I had a friend who broke up with his clingy girlfriend of 2 months, she wanted him back and he refused and stopped taking her calls. She showed up at his house multiple times, she spied on him and followed him when he was out. These are things I saw. He refused to take her back. She then called the police and accused him of rape. It went to trial, her girlfriend testified that the girl called her right after it happened and that my friend had been jealous after she broke up with him. In the trial time and date marked video from a government facility was introduced that showed my friend for 3 solid hours during the time of the "rape". The argument was made that she was so distraught that she (and her friend) must have just got the time wrong and that the date/time stamp on the video might have been wrong or tampered with. I testified about the stalking but it was argued that I was just protecting him. He ended up being convicted and it basically ruined his life. When he got out she was still stalking him. She totaled his car. He moved. She found him and ruined his new relationship. He moved. She found him. He moved and stopped talking to everyone he knew just to get away from her. I am in no way trying to imply this is common behavior ... but the system was so obviously slanted that it was clearly broken ... the system is also broken in that men of power get away with horrible things, but we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking bad behavior only goes one way.

hugepatsfan
01-03-2018, 12:02 PM
This is my issue as well. There are some colleges that require written consent before sex which seems kind of insane but it at least makes it clear beforehand while also illustrating that the he said she said stuff has gotten so out of hand they had to institute this policy.

If you don't actively protect your trademark/patent you lose the right to protect it ... and while it seems callus I think, as a father of daughters, that it's important that people be told regularly that they need to SAY "NO" if they want the person they are with to stop. They need to be physical to stop what's happening while saying "NO" and "STOP". If they are going to a room, kissing, groping, disrobing, and moving in encouraging ways they are "saying" one thing and that's "YES" ... I think "NO" needs to be just as clear if not more so.

I will say, I think these celebrity cases or ones involving workplace relationships are different. That's where that fear of saying no comes in. For "common folk" I don't think that really exists. Like I don't think in most cases a college student will feel afraid to say no to another college student. A random girl in a bar isn't going to be afraid of a random guy. But when the guy is the girl's boss or the guy is just a mega-star the girl is kind of starstruck by you can get these greyer areas where they might be acting like they consent but in the back of their mind they don't want to.

IndyRealist
01-03-2018, 12:34 PM
Written consent solves the problem, but lack of it doesn't mean it was rape even if she says so after the fact.

It's anecdotal evidence and thus fairly worthless, but I had a friend who broke up with his clingy girlfriend of 2 months, she wanted him back and he refused and stopped taking her calls. She showed up at his house multiple times, she spied on him and followed him when he was out. These are things I saw. He refused to take her back. She then called the police and accused him of rape. It went to trial, her girlfriend testified that the girl called her right after it happened and that my friend had been jealous after she broke up with him. In the trial time and date marked video from a government facility was introduced that showed my friend for 3 solid hours during the time of the "rape". The argument was made that she was so distraught that she (and her friend) must have just got the time wrong and that the date/time stamp on the video might have been wrong or tampered with. I testified about the stalking but it was argued that I was just protecting him. He ended up being convicted and it basically ruined his life. When he got out she was still stalking him. She totaled his car. He moved. She found him and ruined his new relationship. He moved. She found him. He moved and stopped talking to everyone he knew just to get away from her. I am in no way trying to imply this is common behavior ... but the system was so obviously slanted that it was clearly broken ... the system is also broken in that men of power get away with horrible things, but we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking bad behavior only goes one way.

The system is broken because it relies on lay people to make decisions about legality. Jurors get it wrong sometimes. And you can explain the legality all day, but sometimes it just comes down to who the jurors believe, regardless of evidence.

Scoots
01-03-2018, 02:11 PM
I will say, I think these celebrity cases or ones involving workplace relationships are different. That's where that fear of saying no comes in. For "common folk" I don't think that really exists. Like I don't think in most cases a college student will feel afraid to say no to another college student. A random girl in a bar isn't going to be afraid of a random guy. But when the guy is the girl's boss or the guy is just a mega-star the girl is kind of starstruck by you can get these greyer areas where they might be acting like they consent but in the back of their mind they don't want to.

I get that, but my problem is that them NOT saying no because it might result in some hardship on themselves is not balanced out by the real likelihood of the person they are accusing having their lives destroyed for lack of them saying "no thanks".

Scoots
01-03-2018, 02:12 PM
The system is broken because it relies on lay people to make decisions about legality. Jurors get it wrong sometimes. And you can explain the legality all day, but sometimes it just comes down to who the jurors believe, regardless of evidence.

Yes, and every time a liar wins it makes it so much harder for the issue to be resolved.