1ºLindsay Powers Lol - please keep up. I’m explaining why he would settle EVEN IF HE WAS INNOCENT! (Which he continues to maintain) Again, context.
Oh, and Watson’s attorney in the litigation doesn’t see a dime of his contractual salary. That would be his agent. The attorney’s job is to act in his client’s best interest (zealous advocacy). For someone who claims to be in the in profession, you certainly don’t sound like it.
As an aside, curious to see so many white women who completely disbelieve Watson despite his sterling reputation before all of this. There’s a loooong history of black men being accused of being “over sexed”. I can’t help, as a black man myself, to wonder if there is a racial element to this. Just something to think about….
2ºAmy Wadsworth, I understand that all the well. I'm fine with the suspension & fines. My comment was based on the he should be "banned for life" and "never allowed to get a message from a women in his life" comments...How can that be tolerated by citizens, that are supposed to be ruled by laws.? And as such, he wasn't convicted of any laws.... The league issued their justice for him breaking their morals clauses, but oh what a slippery slope that can become. Who gets to judge what morals are worse than others. Plenty of players, coaches, owners & executives have all settled out of court for questionable actions as it relates to women, and very little is made of it.
3ºCandace Hasbrouck Lol - “if”? Funny! There’s no ethical prohibition on Facebook comments, lol.
No - it’s not. There are a single “accuser” in the Depp case. Here, there are 23 “accusers”…..all recruited by a single attorney. That said, Watson would have to file 23 individual cases and prove that each defendant knowingly made false statement with malicious intent. It’s also a harder case to make because they aren’t public figures.
I’m not a fan of Watson - I’m an Eagles fan. I AM a fan of fairness & justice though…..something that doesn’t seem to mean much to you.
4ºCandace Hasbrouck Lol - you get to define what a “deviant” is, huh? If you knew the history of white women accusing black men of being “deviants” & how much bigotry there is tied up in that word, perhaps you’d be more careful using it.
What I think was that he was a rich 25 year old that forgot the importance of a conversation around boundaries. What I’m not going to do is assume he has “behavioral issues”. He was a model citizen in every other area of his life - and that matters. Of course it’s about “criminality” - because anything short of that is functionally an accident. A misunderstanding. Intentional acts ARE crimes (for the most part). Learn to appreciate the difference……
5ºCraig Browne Jr And again, no one hands their money out for free. Anyone who is innocent would gladly go through litigation
to prove their innocence and clear their name. What he tried to do was pay each 100k and sign an aggressive NDA to keep quiet, which most refused. Women can do some dirty stuff, but ain’t no way in hell 23 of them are gonna accuse someone of the same exact same without some truth to it. He’s a weird little human and should be banned from the NFL altogether. Anyone who supports him just bc he is a “good QB” is just as weird.
6ºCraig Browne Jr people do all kinds of weird stuff of the internet that don’t like your opinion, so it’s definitely something to be mindful of. Btw: I am mixed and my dad is black. I know very well the history of white women accusing black men falsely of horrible acts that they were innocent of. My brother is a lawyer and has wrote numerous articles, and fights every day for racial motivated injustices. You don’t know me. You can have your opinion on excusing Watson’s behavior as a boundary issue. Someone who has 24, 25 women accusing him of the same thing isn’t just a “boundary issue” as you summarized it as. He is the epitome of a sexual deviant, and very predatory. He needs help tbh.
7ºCandace Hasbrouck Lol - what do you do for a living? You seem to have missed the fact that LITIGATION COSTS MONEY. Once a claim has to be defended, there’s a cost. Sometimes it’s easier (and quicker) to simply settle and bring the conflict to resolution. This is what I do for a living - perhaps I know a bit better than you, yeah?
I support the fact that there was no probable cause. I support the reality that he denies wrongdoing - and the investigation seemed reveal that.
Assigning him guilt because ONE attorney recruited a class of women willing to make a claim for money damages - now THAT’S weird.
8ºEdward M. Rugh Lol - cute. You want to Google law & present it to a lawyer.
Let me help you. Civil liability & criminal liability for sexual assault turn on the same nexus of operative fact. The only difference is the burden of proof. In civil cases - it’s a preponderance of the evidence (51% likely, more likely than not). It just so happens that’s EXACTLY the standard for a finding of probable cause. In other words, the authorities concluded it WASN’T likely he had committed sexual assault.
Next time - don’t try to use your Facebook University law degree, friend. It’s not worth much, lol….
9ºMargaret J. Shaw please what. Allegations are just that until it is sorted out in a court of law. Two grand juries did not indict him. See, there’s the huge difference I won’t speak on the matter until a grand jury indicts and then a jury convicts him of the crimes he’s charged with. You’re big into the court of public opinion. You actually incorrect when it comes to the NFL and breaking their code of conduct. No player has ever been given the benefit of the doubt with the new sanitized code of conduct. They have their own investigators who don’t have subpoena power and it’s a kangaroo court. But again no player has gone up against the NFL’s “burden” of proof and survived without suspension. Wait I’m wrong Robert Kraft got away with his request in a massage parlor.
10ºBill Nesc oh yes! For example, the regime holds the US embargo responsible for all its woes, if there is a problem and there are a lot, it is the fault of what the political hoardings and the State TV programmes (excuse my using English English), it is "El Bloqeuo" that is to blame. But oddly, and for example, the purchase of frozen chicken from the US this year to date, is running at record levels - don't tell me that no one is getting a cut. Then there is the monopoly telecommunications company named ETECSA - which I am using right now - 27% owned by RAFINSA. RA = Raul, FI = Fidel. They coughed up $706 million to buy that from Italy which had been a shareholder pre- revolution. I refer to the heirarchy as: "Los Gordos" - the fat ones!