Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
2024 Detroit Lions 8-1: Lions squeak by Texans 26-23 (48 Viewers)
- Thread starter Da Guru
- Start date
In 2010, Ben Roethlisberger also had sexual assault charges against him dropped (unlike Patricia, he wasn't even indicted). Assume for a moment that the case wasn't a national story at the time, and had gone completely under the radar. If Ben were interviewing for a HC job in 2030, would you say it was unimportant for teams to look into the incident?
(To be clear, I'm not equating Patricia and Roethlisberger. I'm simply saying that the mere fact that charges were dismissed does not automatically mean no crime was committed, and it does not absolve future employers from looking into the incident to determine exactly what happened.)
matuski
Footballguy
NE_REVIVAL
Footballguy
Really? Because there's a good chance that he did, in fact, commit rape. It's one thing to say it shouldn't cost him the hypothetical job, but your position is that no one should even bother raising the question?
What about Harvey Weinstein? He was investigated by the NYPD in 2015 and never charged. Not worth looking into that one, either? Is it your view that the lack of charges means Ambra Battilana was never assaulted?
matuski
Footballguy
Really.
eta - Seriously, what are we gonna do? Bring up that time he wasn't charged for something for 20 years? When that guy is buried I think we should be "raising the question" still.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Grand jury found that it was reasonably likely he committed the act and should go to trial. The accuser said she couldn’t take going through the trial. While it doesn’t damn Patricia, it certainly sounds bad and is a bad situation for the Lions. As someone that did not like the hiring, this isn’t helping.
red stripe
Footballguy
FWIW as parent of two teens I think Instagram et al. is a huge reason why drinking and generally delinquent behavior is down in teens. Gen X is right on the cusp of the information age where when we were 21ish the concept of online privacy didnt even exist. A lot of people do not appreciate how much the internet has changed societial norms. Not excusing him but everyone knew what was going on spring break / South Padre even without the internet. I made some horrible choices when I was an adolescent and I am really thankful those have been forgotten in the annals of history and no one has had license to bring them up. People grow up and move on.
The guy has a wife and kids and as far as we know has never had one bad thing said about him in the past 20 years, wasn't tried, yet the entire sports page of the Free Press is plastered with "Matt Patricia Sexual Assault".
Hopefully we can go back to reporting on the D Line, etc really soon, like tomorrow.
I think you're conflating two different issues. Legally speaking, Patricia, Roethlisberger and Weinstein did not commit a crime, because for various reasons the state was unable to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they did.
However, the legal question is separate from the empirical question of what actually happened. The jury may not have found OJ Simpson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but I'm here to tell you that MF'er did it. As an employer, I'm not just interested in whether a potential employee was convicted of a crime. I'm interested in whether they actually committed it.
Back to Patricia, the fact that he was indicted suggests he might have done something wrong. The fact that the charges were dropped suggests that he didn't. But neither of those things prove anything conclusively. As an employer paying him millions of dollars to be the face of the franchise, the Lions can't afford to outsource their vetting to the criminal justice system and just assume that no conviction means nothing happened. That doesn't mean Patricia deserves to have his name dragged through the mud. In fact, this would have been less of a story if the team's response had been, "We became aware of this during our vetting process, we looked into it thoroughly, and we're confident he did nothing wrong." As I said upthread, among the many reasons they should have looked into it, there's also the narrow selfish perspective of wanting to avoid the exact PR issue that they're currently facing.
bostonfred
Footballguy
DETROIT, MI - The statute of limitations for being accused of a crime is now over 20 years, the court of public opinion ruled today, in a landmark decision that overturned the previous ruling made by the actual court. There is no higher court to appeal to. Sentencing is expected to begin soon, but is expected to include disgrace to his wife and kids, irreparable harm to his reputation, depression, enormous legal and pr fees, and possibly the loss of his job and serious depression. The media was unavailable for comment because they were counting the clicks they get for reckless journalism.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Bah this is silly.
Would much rather hear speculation about actual football for the Lions than this as the stomach turns drama.
Would much rather hear speculation about actual football for the Lions than this as the stomach turns drama.
I've said that, assuming the allegations are all untrue, this whole situation is unfair to Patricia, but let's keep things in perspective. He hasn't lost his job, he hasn't been re-charged with a crime, he hasn't lost any money, he hasn't even been branded a rapist. Also, the word "reckless" has a very specific meaning when it comes to journalism and libel law, and I defy you to explain to me how printing a true fact -- that Patricia was indicted -- is in any way "reckless" or libelous.
This notion that, if someone is accused of but not convicted of a crime, society as a whole should be required to stick their heads in the ground and pretend nothing ever happened is bizarre. If OJ Simpson had moved into your neighborhood in 1996, would you have told your neighbors it was unfair to complain about living next door to a murderer?
Last edited by a moderator:
red stripe
Footballguy
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
The Captain
Footballguy
I’m really excited about the Crosby pick.red stripe said:
matuski
Footballguy
Empirically speaking. Being indicted DOES NOT suggest he did something wrong. There is no guilt attached to a dismissed accusation 22 years ago.zftcg said:
The current PR "issue" is only by those dumb enough to fall for the click bait. No reasonable argument to be made here.
Last edited by a moderator:
matuski
Footballguy
Yes. This situation is so much like OJ, I mistook Patricia for being black today. Patricia left the press conference in a white Bronco I bet.
You should have gone with Weinstein... the fat/beard combo would have really made this effort legit.
Or Hitler. Hitler was white too.
Jack the Ripper had a beard right?
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes. This situation is so much like OJ, I mistook Patricia for being black today.
You should have gone with Weinstein... the fat/beard combo would have really made this effort legit.
Or Hitler. Hitler was white too.
Jack the Ripper had a beard right?
OK, let me explain this to you slowly.
I'm not saying Patricia is like OJ. I'm using an analogy to demonstrate the problem in your logic. (In case you're not clear on what that is, here is the definition of analogy.)
You said that the fact that someone was indicted two decades ago but never convicted of a crime means that empirically speaking, apart from any legal standard, one cannot draw any inferences that they did anything wrong. I was merely pointing out that the exact same set of facts pertains to OJ.
So I'll ask again. Do you believe that OJ was empirically innocent of murder? If not, what specifically makes you view his situation differently from Patricia's (other than the beard and skin color)?
Last edited by a moderator:
matuski
Footballguy
If you put a backwards hat on Cosby.. no way you could tell the difference.
OK, let me explain this to you slowly.
I'm not saying Patricia is like OJ. I'm using an analogy to demonstrate the problem in your logic. (In case you're not clear on what that is, here is the definition of analogy.)
You said that the fact that someone was indicted two decades ago but never convicted of a crime means that empirically speaking, apart from any legal standard, one cannot presume that they did anything wrong. I was merely pointing out that the exact same set of facts pertains to OJ.
So I'll ask again. Do you believe the fact that OJ was empirically innocent of murder? If not, what makes you view his situation differently from Patricia's?
matuski
Footballguy
Doesn't understand what an analogy is. Honestly is that clueless. Even after I provided the dictionary definition.
Can;t make this #### up.
matuski
Footballguy
I missed the part where Patricia fled the scene in a televised police chase, was charged with murder, then taken to trial, hired Kim Kardashian's dad as a lawyer, had eye witness/murder weapon/DNA evidence presented against him, and tried on a glove.
I mean, I really think @zftcg nailed it here.
I mean, I really think @zftcg nailed it here.
Last edited by a moderator:
simey
Footballguy
Being indicted does suggest someone did something wrong. I was the foreperson on a grand jury for a year. We met the first Monday of every month, and heard cases to decide whether we would hand down a "true bill" or not. A true bill is an indictment, and it means there was enough probable cause that a crime was committed, and that person probably did it, and they should be tried for the crime.
Patricia wasn't found not guilty. The accuser didn't want to go through a trial (which is not uncommon for a rape victim), so the trial didn't move forward. Guilt or innocence was never determined. Fast-forwarding to the present, a reporter did their homework on Patricia, and discovered the sexual assault charge, and brought it up. It's part of their job to find out information on their subject, and being charged with sexual assault is relevant to someone's character, whether it happened yesterday or years ago. Patricia answered the questions regarding the charge, and it seems the Lions are satisfied with it. The three involved know the truth, and the truth will remain a mystery. By the way, I think your #wannabeMeToo crap is disturbing.
matuski
Footballguy
You don't know if being charged with any crime is relevant to a person's character if the charges are dismissed. He did not get tried, he did not get to face his accuser and defend himself.
And 22 years later with those who know him best rallying to defend said character... it is a farce to persist with this argument and logic.
This, like other recent examples, is an insult to the #meToo movement and its noble purpose. This is what should be disturbing. #wannabemeToo.
Last edited by a moderator:
bigmarc27
Footballguy
He’s been purposefully obtuse since it broke. He doesn’t want to engage in discussion, just prefers willful ignorance. I’m not saying Patricia did anything wrong, you’re not saying that either, just that something did happen and it’s fair to discuss. He’s made up his mind because he likes his football team. Priorities can be a funny thing.
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
bigmarc27
Footballguy
No?
have you ever known someone who has been assaulted? It’s a very traumatic event, most tend to want to forget it ever happened. Again I’m not saying Patricia did anything wrong at all, but a victim of assault not wanting to testify and not taking the case further in either criminal or civil court is something that happens every single day.
GregR
Footballguy
ESPN:
Regardless of what anyone here thinks of Patricia in regards to this, saying the Lions should have taken this into consideration would be saying the Lions should have broken the law. Per statement from the Lions, information that cannot be used in employment decisions wasn't included in the results they were given from background checks.
Regardless of what anyone here thinks of Patricia in regards to this, saying the Lions should have taken this into consideration would be saying the Lions should have broken the law. Per statement from the Lions, information that cannot be used in employment decisions wasn't included in the results they were given from background checks.
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
Sounds like there is going to be alot of digging by the press now....wonder if thia results in something bad for matty patty......
Interesting. Thanks for posting.
I didn't realize that was the law, and I retract my criticism of the Lions regarding their background check. Sounds like they did things by the book.
bigmarc27
Footballguy
Prosecutors had medical evidence, at least 5 witnesses...
https://www.thescore.com/nfl/news/1543620
Still not making judgement on whether or not he did something, but I think this article basically means this isn’t going away anytime soon.
https://www.thescore.com/nfl/news/1543620
Still not making judgement on whether or not he did something, but I think this article basically means this isn’t going away anytime soon.
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
Is matty patty in some kind of legal jeopardy still?? Man what a crazy story
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Well included in those witnesses are a doctor, nurse, and detective. So there is no doubt that there was sex, it’s a matter of consent.
bigmarc27
Footballguy
My understanding is that the female in this scenario still does not want to talk about it, so legally I’m guessing he’s probably ok unless she changes her mind. It’s going to be how much comes out, how damning it is, and then how the Lions feel about it.
ICON211
Footballguy
As far as keeping his job, if she decided she wants to talk about it and sounds credible he's done in this day and age. And someone is going to find the other witnesses that were to be called if they are still alive. I think there is a real chance he doesn't make it to week 1.
I don't really have a problem with the press looking into this issue and trying to find out exactly what happened. If Patricia did assault that woman (and got away with it), then it's hard to have a ton of sympathy for him, no matter how much time has passed. And if he didn't, I hope that will become clear as well.
But what I absolutely refuse to do is speculate based on incomplete information. I have no idea why the woman dropped the charges. I have no idea why she never filed a civil suit. I have no idea why five witnesses appeared on the prosecutor's list, or what they were planning to say. Any conclusions I could draw based on those snippets would say a lot more about my own biases, and what I hoped was true, than about what actually happened.
As of now, my default assumption is that he deserves the benefit of the doubt and is innocent of any wrongdoing. Unless and until I hear information that causes me to think otherwise, that will remain my position.
All of this is completely independent of the legal standard. In the eyes of the law, he is innocent and, since the statute of limitations has expired, will never be charged. What I'm describing is my own internal thought process.
But what I absolutely refuse to do is speculate based on incomplete information. I have no idea why the woman dropped the charges. I have no idea why she never filed a civil suit. I have no idea why five witnesses appeared on the prosecutor's list, or what they were planning to say. Any conclusions I could draw based on those snippets would say a lot more about my own biases, and what I hoped was true, than about what actually happened.
As of now, my default assumption is that he deserves the benefit of the doubt and is innocent of any wrongdoing. Unless and until I hear information that causes me to think otherwise, that will remain my position.
All of this is completely independent of the legal standard. In the eyes of the law, he is innocent and, since the statute of limitations has expired, will never be charged. What I'm describing is my own internal thought process.
As a Lions fan, are you ready to forgive Matt Millen?
I think I'm mostly over it, and not just because he's sick (though I certainly wish him good health). I think it's because with the benefit of hindsight, I can see clearly that while he was the worst GM the Lions (and maybe the entire NFL) has ever seen, it's not like the other people who ran the franchise before and since have done a whole lot better. I guess what I'm saying is that the further we get from the Millen Era, the more he blends in with the rest of the franchise's suckitude. He took a mediocre team and made it God-awful, and since that time the franchise has rebounded back to mediocrity.
I will also give him the tiniest bit of credit for the 2007 draft: Yes, it was universally recognized even at the time that Calvin was a generational talent and a can't-miss prospect. Still, as King points out, Millen had already taken three WRs in the Top Ten over the previous four years, and to that point had gotten two total busts and a middling starter (while passing on Andre Johnson and DeMarcus Ware). No matter how sure anyone was about Calvin's talent, you have to assume anyone in that position would have some gnawing doubts about not screwing it up yet again. So I give him half a cheer for finally getting it right.
I think I'm mostly over it, and not just because he's sick (though I certainly wish him good health). I think it's because with the benefit of hindsight, I can see clearly that while he was the worst GM the Lions (and maybe the entire NFL) has ever seen, it's not like the other people who ran the franchise before and since have done a whole lot better. I guess what I'm saying is that the further we get from the Millen Era, the more he blends in with the rest of the franchise's suckitude. He took a mediocre team and made it God-awful, and since that time the franchise has rebounded back to mediocrity.
I will also give him the tiniest bit of credit for the 2007 draft: Yes, it was universally recognized even at the time that Calvin was a generational talent and a can't-miss prospect. Still, as King points out, Millen had already taken three WRs in the Top Ten over the previous four years, and to that point had gotten two total busts and a middling starter (while passing on Andre Johnson and DeMarcus Ware). No matter how sure anyone was about Calvin's talent, you have to assume anyone in that position would have some gnawing doubts about not screwing it up yet again. So I give him half a cheer for finally getting it right.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
It really shows how screwed up that whole line of thinking is, that even Matt Millen got it right by not obsessing over previous screw-ups that just happened to be at the same position. The easy thing would be to draft a non-WR and on that he might have messed up yet again.zftcg said:
Not the exact same scenario, but the Browns during the Sashi Brown/DePodesta era seemed afraid to gamble a high pick on a QB, as a result trading away the picks that became Wentz and Watson.
As for the '07 draft, the irony is that it probably didn't matter; the first round was completely stacked (probably second only to '11 in terms of best drafts this century), and if the Lions had passed on Calvin to do the "safe" thing they probably would have ended up with Joe Thomas. Other first round picks included Peterson, Willis, Lynch and Revis.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
I remember him being pretty good as a MNF radio color commentator. He really needed to stick to that and people's opinions of him now would be vastly different.
squistion
Footballguy
Adam SchefterVerified account @AdamSchefter 39m39 minutes ago
NFL determined that neither the Lions nor Matt Patricia will be subject to any discipline in regards to previous allegations made against Detroit’s HC, per sources. The league met last week with the Lions and Patricia.
More on NFL’s decision not to discipline either the Lions or their HC Matt Patricia over previous allegations:
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/23563480/lions-matt-patricia-not-subject-discipline-1996-sexual-assault-allegation
NFL determined that neither the Lions nor Matt Patricia will be subject to any discipline in regards to previous allegations made against Detroit’s HC, per sources. The league met last week with the Lions and Patricia.
More on NFL’s decision not to discipline either the Lions or their HC Matt Patricia over previous allegations:
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/23563480/lions-matt-patricia-not-subject-discipline-1996-sexual-assault-allegation
