Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

QB Deshaun Watson - present at the start of Texans training camp.


Faust

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, menobrown said:

It can be both, but civil is easier to win in court and considerably more profitable to the plaintiff.

wouldn't a civil case mean this is a money issue only?

And wouldn't it free Watson from any serious repercussions from the league?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dhockster said:

Regarding consensual sex, Vanessa Richardson, a local reporter, had this report from sources close to Deshaun Watson that "some" of the cases against him involved consensual sex:

https://www.click2houston.com/sports/2021/03/23/sources-deshaun-watson-had-completely-consensual-sexual-encounters-with-some-of-his-accusers/

That's a pretty good trick considering he supposedly doesn't know who his accusers are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Soulfly3 said:

wouldn't a civil case mean this is a money issue only?

And wouldn't it free Watson from any serious repercussions from the league?

Some would argue civil is just easier to prove and get to court and not about money. Call me skeptical.

Elliot got 6 games without his case even making it to civil court. AB never technically got put on exempt list but Roger threatening to do if anyone signed him is the only reason.

The NFL would investigate Watson and is investigating him even if the cases were all dropped so he's for sure in danger of facing repercussions from the league.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Foosball God said:

They're not even sure if she is one of the plaintiffs, they're making an "educated guess".  I would be much more skeptical if this were the only woman, but there are 13 - 15 others, even if she is one of them.

 

5 minutes ago, Foosball God said:

That's a pretty good trick considering he supposedly doesn't know who his accusers are.

Sounds like you want it both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Soulfly3 said:

wouldn't a civil case mean this is a money issue only?

And wouldn't it free Watson from any serious repercussions from the league?

It would. The attorney for the accusers has requested a grand jury.

I believe it was Watson's attorney who equested a police investigation, but that may be rumor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, menobrown said:

 

Sounds like you want it both ways.

Eh, they're complaining about not knowing, and then leaking things like he had consensual sex with some of his accusers.  Seems like they are trying to have it both ways.

All that really does it make it seem like he does like to get off during massages and it's likely he does make some masseuses feel uncomfortable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

L

Quote

All that really does it make it seem like he does like to get off during massages and it's likely he does make some masseuses feel uncomfortable.

Important to note that while perhaps creepy or weird, neither of those things are actionable unless there is lack of consent, which is what matters here. 

ETA: In fact, just the “being creepy or weird” part isn’t illegal either, in and of itself, and requires no consent. 

Where this will get challenging for the prosecutor is if there was agreement that the massage was to be fully nude. At the point merely propositioning a masseuse is not illegal, though it is creepy if it wasn’t an understood part of the deal in advance.

An actual assault would have to have been committed.

So what if it turns out x# of women engaged in consensual halt ending, while 14 women were propositioned?

File that under “creepy but not illegal”.

I’m hypothesizing here, not saying what I think happened. Just another if/then to consider. 

 

Edited by Hot Sauce Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:

I liked it better when I just got my news from Walter Cronkite on the CBS Evening news at 6:30 ET and my local news at 6:00 and 11:00 (ET).

Johnny.....no trying to sound snarky....but this is like the 5th time you have posted something like this.....yet you keep coming back....if this isn't your roll, don't click on the thread at this point.....this is probably the direction the DW thread is going to go for awhile....

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that annoys me about this whole thing is mostly the fact that, with the apps we have today, why go through the trouble of this "back pages" type transaction? Like massage therapy? Cool, get a massage, and while you are doing that, look through tinder and find a girl that wants to do weird stuff 

 

One of these stories is way off base. Either old man mcnair doesnt know how the kids hook up nowadays and concocted this story to try to punish him, or watson really is a deviant and also not very smart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

Important to note that while perhaps creepy or weird, neither of those things are actionable unless there is lack of consent, which is what matters here. 

And if it's a consensual thing between them then great, I'm not the moral police, do what you like.  It doesn't seem to be the case though if a bunch of women are coming forward.  Like I said, we'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Foosball God said:

And if it's a consensual thing between them then great, I'm not the moral police, do what you like.  It doesn't seem to be the case though if a bunch of women are coming forward.  Like I said, we'll see.

See my post edit. Even being creepy & weird doesn’t require consent. Men are creepy & weird towards women all the time. 

It might be a terminable offense if it’s workplace-related, but it’s not criminal. 

It isn’t illegal to be creepy & weird towards women & consent is irrelevant to that aspect. 

And women can’t take men to court simply for being creepy & weird. there’d be millions of lawsuits a day. I’m not saying that’s ok. I’m just saying. Men be creepy. 

It must literally be sexual assault for it to be actionable either civilly or criminally. 

Saying something creepy isn’t a crime, even if you’re naked and being massaged. Even popping wood in that circumstance isn’t a crime. 

It’s an important distinction to draw here. To be actionable there must be assault. And it’s a lot easier to have 16 accusers say he was being inappropriate than to have 16 accusers prove assault.

which is probably why this is such a public spectacle. That’s much easier to do and will have better results of a settlement. 

Hypothetically speaking. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

See my post edit. Even being creepy & weird doesn’t require consent. Men are creepy & weird towards women all the time. 

It might be a terminable offense if it’s workplace-related, but it’s not criminal. 

It isn’t illegal to be creepy & weird towards women & consent is irrelevant to that aspect. 

And women can’t take men to court simply for being creepy & weird. there’d be millions of lawsuits a day. I’m not saying that’s ok. I’m just saying. Men be creepy. 

It must literally be sexual assault for it to be actionable either civilly or criminally. 

Saying something creepy isn’t a crime, even if you’re naked and being massaged. Even popping wood in that circumstance isn’t a crime. 

It’s an important distinction to draw here. To be actionable there must be assault. And it’s a lot easier to have 16 accusers say he was being inappropriate than to have 16 accusers prove assault.

which is probably why this is such a public spectacle. That’s much easier to do and will have better results of a settlement. 

Hypothetically speaking. 

So is rubbing your genitals on another person intentionally without consent, by a legal definition, sexual assualt? Because that is what a lot of them are alleging.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

12 minutes ago, Pwingles said:

One of these stories is way off base. Either old man mcnair doesnt know how the kids hook up nowadays and concocted this story to try to punish him, or watson really is a deviant and also not very smart.

Being dumb and deviant isn’t illegal though. 

Always have to circle back to that. 

Sexual assault is illegal, and very serious. It will have to be proved that any sexual contact was non-consensual. 

That’s really the long and short of it. 

If it was a consensual rub & tug, then it’s a form of prostitution & both parties might be in minor jeopardy. 

I think it’s going to be very difficult to prove assault for what took place behind closed doors. Even if it’s 16 she saids to 1 he said, that’s 16x sexual assault will have to be proved. The only time that ratio matters is in the court of public opinion. “Well if 16 women are saying it...” kinda thing. 

And it’ll be even tougher to prove if these aren’t certified healthcare professionals. 

Again; again; again: I am not alleging any of this. I’m looking at what we know and what I know of the legal standards of proof, I think it’s gonna be tough. 

Watson is already heading off the fact that one or more likely has his DNA by saying “consensual”’as opposed to “I didn’t do it”. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dhockster said:

So is rubbing your genitals on another person intentionally without consent, by a legal definition, sexual assualt? Because that is what a lot of them are alleging.

Yes. It is sexual assault. 

Prove it. 16x. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

 

Being dumb and deviant isn’t illegal though. 

Always have to circle back to that. 

Sexual assault is illegal, and very serious. It will have to be proved that any sexual contact was non-consensual. 

That’s really the long and short of it. 

If it was a consensual rub & tug, then it’s a form of prostitution & both parties might be in minor jeopardy. 

I think it’s going to be very difficult to prove assault for what took place behind closed doors. Even if it’s 16 she saids to 1 he said, that’s 16x sexual assault will have to be proved. The only time that ratio matters is in the court of public opinion. “Well if 16 women are saying it...” kinda thing. 

And it’ll be even tougher to prove if these aren’t certified healthcare professionals. 

Again; again; again: I am not alleging any of this. I’m looking at what we know and what I know of the legal standards of proof, I think it’s gonna be tough. 

Watson is already heading off the fact that one or more likely has his DNA by saying “consensual”’as opposed to “I didn’t do it”. 

Which is another reason why this might be playing out in civil court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In general...

Civil v Criminal

One is a payday. One sees the individual potentially face just freedom-restricting consequences for law breaking activity. 

If this guy is an actual sexual menace, how and why would this not be criminal and why would anyone not want him behind bars for it?

I don't get it. How is this ONLY civil?

 

 

 

Edited by Soulfly3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Soulfly3 said:

In general...

Civil v Criminal

One is a payday. One sees the individual potentially face just freedom-restricting consequences for law breaking activity. 

If this guy is an actual sexual menace, how and why would this not be criminal and why would anyone not want him behind bars for it?

I don't get it. How is this ONLY civil?

 

 

 

Likely because there is no benefit to the women.......unless they are now threatening police reports to help with the settlement.  

Also, good luck putting someone in jail for this.  Someone rich with no record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Soulfly3 said:

In general...

Civil v Criminal

One is a payday. One sees the individual potentially face just freedom-restricting consequences for law breaking activity. 

If this guy is an actual sexual menace, how and why would this not be criminal and why would anyone not want him behind bars for it?

I don't get it. How is this ONLY civil?

 

 

 

Exactly!!

Only interested in the cash. Which raises even more flags. When OJ did “his thing” it defaulted to a criminal trial. The Goldman’s wanted OJ put away. Only after they lost did they seek Justice civilly. Shouldn’t that be the main interest?? To get Deshaun put away if he’s such an evil predator. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ghostguy123 said:

Likely because there is no benefit to the women.......unless they are now threatening police reports to help with the settlement.  

Also, good luck putting someone in jail for this.  Someone rich with no record.

isn't someone being incarcerated (or at least confirmed as one w other repercussions) for sexual deviancy a benefit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, menobrown said:

As far as I know Watson is making that claim as well as claiming he has several non-sexual encounters with massage therapist who will testify as such.

"I didn't do it EVERY time, so I didn't do it anytime!"  

"Oh, except for the times they consented, which was every time I tried it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, zoonation said:

"I didn't do it EVERY time, so I didn't do it anytime!"  

"Oh, except for the times they consented, which was every time I tried it!"

That’s probably his best defense.

I mean, if it was you being accused how would you handle it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

That’s probably his best defense.

I mean, if it was you being accused how would you handle it? 

It may be his best defense, but I am not buying it at all.  "here are some girls who say I didn't rub my junk on them.  So, therefore, I never did it to anyone".  Not at all persuasive.  Especially when you throw in the "Oh, by the way, I do proposition many massage therapy women and they all loved it".  I mean, come on.

I would not be at all surprised if some of them went for it.  Imagine how many times he has done this?  But I also have no doubt several did not and now they are all lining up.  Also, it is not okay to ask by wiping it out and touching her with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Soulfly3 said:

In general...

Civil v Criminal

One is a payday. One sees the individual potentially face just freedom-restricting consequences for law breaking activity. 

If this guy is an actual sexual menace, how and why would this not be criminal and why would anyone not want him behind bars for it?

I don't get it. How is this ONLY civil?

 

 

 

Not an attorney, but I see it this way: Each of these cases comes down to he said/she said with no other physical evidence of what he actually did (or didn't do) in the massage room. From a criminal case standpoint, this makes it very easy to arrive at reasonable doubt. I think most prosecutors would be very reluctant to actually make a criminal charge in these cases. That does not mean that Deshaun did not do what the plaintiffs said he did. That is why it sucks to be a woman in this day and age and be sexually assaulted in some way. Not only do you suffer the assault, but then it is difficult to punish the perpetrator. Even with the metoo movement, things are still stacked against women.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, zoonation said:

It may be his best defense, but I am not buying it at all.  "here are some girls who say I didn't rub my junk on them.  So, therefore, I never did it to anyone".  Not at all persuasive.  Especially when you throw in the "Oh, by the way, I do proposition many massage therapy women and they all loved it".  I mean, come on.

I would not be at all surprised if some of them went for it.  Imagine how many times he has done this?  But I also have no doubt several did not and now they are all lining up.  Also, it is not okay to ask by wiping it out and touching her with it.

I don’t disagree with any of this, especially the last part (except the spelling of whipping, but that’s just picking nits) - but what matters is what can be proved in a court of law, if this gets that far.

Watson’s defense is basically that any sexual encounter alleged was consensual.  IMO he has to do this because it’s obvious at this point that there’s towels, robes, underwear or tissues with Watson’s DNA on it/them. So he has to make a claim of consensual contact. 

For instances where there is no physical evidence, his best defense is to deny deny deny that anything untoward happened. The burden of proof is on the accuser(s). 

This is his only viable strategy, IMO. And it’s not bad, as strategies go. 

Edited by Hot Sauce Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Soulfly3 said:

isn't someone being incarcerated (or at least confirmed as one w other repercussions) for sexual deviancy a benefit?

To those women?  Maybe, maybe not.  

Leverage is much more beneficial.  There is more money to be had if Watson can continue his career, not blow all his money on lawyers and receive no future millions.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

I don’t disagree with any of this, especially the last part (except the spelling of whipping, but that’s just picking nits) - but what matters is what can be proved in a court of law, if this gets that far.

Watson’s defense is basically that any sexual encounter alleged was consensual.  IMO he has to do this because it’s obvious at this point that there’s towels, robes, underwear or tissues with Watson’s DNA on it/them. So he has to make a claim of consensual contact. 

For instances where there is no physical evidence, his best defense is to deny deny deny that ajutjnt happened. The burden of proof is on the accuser(s). 

This is his only viable strategy, IMO. And it’s not bad, as strategies go. 

I don't think it is that simple.  I suspect that the women, who are actual massage therapists, will be given the benefit of the doubt that it is completely abnormal for a patient to whip out his erect pecker.  Which, of course it is.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, zoonation said:

I don't think it is that simple.  I suspect that the women, who are actual massage therapists, will be given the benefit of the doubt that it is completely abnormal for a client to whip out his erect pecker.  Which, of course it is.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, zoonation said:

I don't think it is that simple.  I suspect that the women, who are actual massage therapists, will be given the benefit of the doubt that it is completely abnormal for a patient to whip out his erect pecker.  Which, of course it is.  

That’s what’s challenging here. Proof is what matters, not what’s alleged to have happened.

Men sometimes get elections during massage. Even with a professional massage therapist. 

That’s not illegal. It’s awkward, but not illegal. 

Propositioning the women is morally questionable, but also not illegal. 

Pushing one’s junk on a woman is totally illegal.

But that would need to be proven. (Proved?) whatever

And to your point about “actual massage therapists”, I’ve said similar. It goes to their credibility if they are licensed sports massage therapists, and IMO if a number of them are and make similar claims, it hurts Watson’s chances. But right now we have no idea if that’s the case. 

If it turns out that they aren’t licensed certified massage therapists, it’s going to be much more difficult for their case. 

As some have suggested, this could be a civil thing & then it becomes an extended PR battle. I’m not talking about that stuff. I’m talking about the standard of proof needed if it goes to court, or if the police open an investigation. 

 

Edited by Hot Sauce Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, by opting solely on civil, 15 of 15 women decided this criminal should not be punished by imprisonment, but only financially?

Can they go civil then criminal?

I'm sorry, but if this guy is a criminal, he should br tried as one. Not just pay a few women off, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Soulfly3 said:

So, by opting solely on civil, 15 of 15 women decided this criminal should not be punished by imprisonment, but only financially?

Can they go civil then criminal?

I'm sorry, but if this guy is a criminal, he should br tried as one. Not just pay a few women off, no?

From your perspective, I guess.

From their perspective, possibly not.  Still a lot of ways this can go.  It's been what, a week?

  • Like 1
  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Soulfly3 said:

So, by opting solely on civil, 15 of 15 women decided this criminal should not be punished by imprisonment, but only financially?

Can they go civil then criminal?

I'm sorry, but if this guy is a criminal, he should br tried as one. Not just pay a few women off, no?

Key to note civil is a choice anyone can make. Anyone can file a civil case against anyone, it's your choice.

We don't get to decide what goes to criminal court, that's for law enforcement to decide. And part of that decision for law enforcement is if they think they can win in trial, which is considerably harder to do since criminal cases guilt is supposed to be determined beyond reasonableness of doubt while civil you just need to make a case that you think it's more likely then not someone is guilty, better then 50/50.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, JoeJoe88 said:

Sorry...didn’t mean to disrupt the scintillating conversations we have going on in here lol 

Come for the bad amateur legal takes, stay for the misogyny & victim blaming?  

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, menobrown said:

Key to note civil is a choice anyone can make. Anyone can file a civil case against anyone, it's your choice.

We don't get to decide what goes to criminal court, that's for law enforcement to decide. And part of that decision for law enforcement is if they think they can win in trial, which is considerably harder to do since criminal cases guilt is supposed to be determined beyond reasonableness of doubt while civil you just need to make a case that you think it's more likely then not someone is guilty, better then 50/50.

 

100% all of this. It’s what I’ve eluded to in the last page or so.

we, the public, might be creeped out by someone’s behavior. All circumstantial evidence we know about might point to that person being a serial creep who does creepy things.

but the only way this ends up In court is if there’s enough evidence for a DA to pursue that route. 

And the standard of proof it higher than “16 women said x about Watson”.  They need evidence.

I believe it would be very difficult to prove anything here. And in our system of justice theres the presumption of innocence and burden of proof is on the accuser. 

Civil cases are far different. From what I understand it’s more of a crap shoot, which is why sometimes innocent people will settle out of court. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Faust changed the title to QB Deshaun Watson - present at the start of Texans training camp.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...