Schefter: Patricia to become new Lions HC

[Papelbon's Poutine]

No one. For whatever reason they just have not been good at identifying coaches. Lions coaches are like Browns QBs. However, Its still way too much turnover. As you said it could just be that everyone just flat out sucks and its just been a massive string of bad luck. Its a combination of both there. I'm sure the coaches are at least consulted on possible draft choices so both share the fault. Perception is everything and ownership can be viewed as a negative for things like that.

Not to be pedantic, but that's not the point you tried to make. You implied they had too quick a trigger finger on firing coaches. The simple matter is that they allow the actual FO to handle it and step in when it gets too much, such as in the case of Millen (9 years) or even Mayhew (7 years). They are notorious for being hands off on daily matters.

One could certainly make the argument that they make bad choices in front office hirings, or stuck with them too long, but citing them for the coaching turnover - when everything we have speaks to the contrary, that they don't get involved with it - seems odd and inaccurate.

 

[jsinger121]

Patricia beardless

 

[JohnnyTheBone]

Patricia beardless

 

[Royal Reader]

Serious question: are there anti-poaching clauses in OC / DC and other senior staff contracts like there are in other industries? Just seems this shouldn't be an issue... at least in the short term.

Pretty sure you're allowed to forbid your employees to talk to anyone else about lateral moves. There's the strong norm (can't remember if it's written anywhere) that you let guys interview for any and all promotions. So we're likely only talking Patricia poaching a defensive position coach to be DC under him, and the Pats could avoid that by promoting that guy to DC themselves. Anyone got a bead on who the next man up is likely to be - Flores?

 

[Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt]

I believe it's Flores unless he (edit) winds up HC in Arizona.

 

[Buck Showalter]

Patricia beardless

Looks like Sal Pal's younger brother.

 

[PC Drunken Friar]

i mean...this isn't even close. GJGE

 

[dbn]

Patricia beardless

If you blurred out the Patriots logo and asked me to guess who this was, I'm not sure how many tries it would have taken me to get it correct, but I do know that it would have been a large number.

 

[jsinger121]

The evolution of Matt Patricia

 

[SeoulSoxFan]

The evolution of Matt Patricia

I will forever root for Patricia's team except when facing the Pats. Of course, this sealed it:

This was bonus:

 

[JohnnyTheBone]

The evolution of Matt Patricia

From Flounder to Bluto in 7 short years.

 

[InstaFace]

or Gimli.

 

[Infield Infidel]

The evolution of Matt Patricia

1. Job interview
2. Six months in
3. Year 3
4. They'll never fire me

 

[Van Everyman]

Nice piece in the glob on Flores and his road to being a leading candidate:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/patriots/2018/02/01/why-brian-flores-could-next-patriots-defensive-coordinator/BDNHbosunlJES5et6eciWO/story.html

 

[tims4wins]

Nice piece in the glob on Flores and his road to being a leading candidate:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/patriots/2018/02/01/why-brian-flores-could-next-patriots-defensive-coordinator/BDNHbosunlJES5et6eciWO/story.html

Similar pieces on ESPN.com and other outlets recently too

 

[Omar's Wacky Neighbor]

If you blurred out the Patriots logo and asked me to guess who this was, I'm not sure how many tries it would have taken me to get it correct, but I do know that it would have been a large number.

Seeing it again, it just hit me: a really young Chris Christie.

 

[Super Nomario]

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports/nfl/lions/2018/05/09/matt-patricia-indicted-sex-assault/34742627/

TL;DR: Patricia was charged with sexual assault in 1996 but the charges were dropped when the victim declined to testify.

 

[Van Everyman]

Wow, this is incredibly depressing. The lawyers in that article come off as completely insensitive at best. And given that his background check for the Lions job failed to find anything about a case that went to a grand jury, this is yet more evidence that the NFL’s protocols around this stuff and ballyhooed investigative prowess are a joke.

Patricia is going to have to speak about this sooner or later – there’s just no way he can say “no comment.” And , I suspect Goodell would very much like his pound of flesh from Patricia here. Yuck.

 

[DukeSox]

He already spoke about it, today.

 

[Reverend]

He already spoke about it, today.

You report, we deci--

Wait. No. Thanks for nothing.

NFL.com: Matt Patricia, Lions issue statement on '96 assault allegation

Deadspin: Report: Lions Coach Matt Patricia Was Indicted For Sexual Assault In 1996

And for @Van Everyman : Deadspin: We Found Matt Patricia’s Sexual Assault Indictment In 30 Seconds. Why Didn’t The Detroit Lions?

 

[MarcSullivaFan]

Wow, this is incredibly depressing. The lawyers in that article come off as completely insensitive at best. And given that his background check for the Lions job failed to find anything about a case that went to a grand jury, this is yet more evidence that the NFL’s protocols around this stuff and ballyhooed investigative prowess are a joke.

Patricia is going to have to speak about this sooner or later – there’s just no way he can say “no comment.” And , I suspect Goodell would very much like his pound of flesh from Patricia here. Yuck.

Most background checks do not check for arrests that did not lead to a conviction, largely because the EEOC has taken a hard line against using arrests to make employment decisions. That policy is based on the premise that using arrests in making employment decisions has a disparate impact on African Americans. Many states and localities affirmatively prohibit the practice to some extent.

Similarly, the EEOC would say that convictions should not be automatically disqualifying — employers should consider recency, the nature of the crime, and whether the crime is job related. I.e., a 10 year old child molesting charge may be disqualifying for a job at the local swimming pool, but not for working in a warehouse with no contact with the public.

Obviously the allegation here is horrific, and an NFL coach is a lot less sympathetic than a blue collar worker trying to make ends meet. But generally speaking, keeping folks with a criminal history from working, without a job related reason, is a bad thing. In Patricia’s case, he was never convicted, and he’s stayed out of trouble for 20 years. Is there some social value in having him run out of the NFL now? I’m not sure I agree with that.

I think it’s a good thing that #MeToo has resulted in real consequences for scumbags in positions of power. If more recent stuff with Patricia surfaces, then screw him. But right now, I don’t see that the Lions’ position is unreasonable.

As to Goodell, I don’t see him doing anything, unless Patricia has lied to the league about his past.

 

[Van Everyman]

I understand that – and the article says as much about federal guidance around employment background checks.

But the NFL has said they have a zero tolerance policy for domestic abuse and sexual assault. They have also been clear that they have a lower standard for proof than a court of law – that credible charges alone are enough to warrant discipline. That they didn’t catch this is embarrassing.

Beyond that, I find these charges credible. They were credible enough to warrant a grand jury indictment at the time. Other factors should be considered as well, including the fact that we now know that women routinely didn’t bring charges or testify about assaults because of the shame and pain associated with the process – especially while in college.

Also relevant is that Dietrich and Patricia’s fraternity (of which Dietrich was president at Rensselaer) had a history of sexual assaults around the country and in the region – at my wife’s college, Rochester, Theta Chi was also the football fraternity and found guilty of a gang rape around the same time. They were ultimately kicked off campus.

I think Patricia is going to have a hard time surviving this. At a minimum, the Lions are going to rightfully face a lot of heat.

 

[lexrageorge]

Given that the (alleged) incident happened over 20 years ago, and that the indictment ended up being dropped, there is unlikely to be much action from the NFL or the Lions. They cannot fault Patricia for the actions of his fraternity on a different campus.

 

[OurF'ingCity]

At a minimum, the Lions are going to rightfully face a lot of heat.

Why not the Patriots too? They employed the guy for a lot longer than he's been a Lions employee, so they either (a) also missed this when conducting a background check when he was first hired or (b) concluded that the charges weren't credible or that Patricia shouldn't be held to account for charges not proven in a court of law.

Given the specific circumstances here, while I can definitely understand the other point of view, I don't think Patricia deserves to be fired. My point is just that if you want to criticize the Lions you have to criticize the Patriots too.

 

[DJnVa]

Why not the Patriots too? They employed the guy for a lot longer than he's been a Lions employee, so they either (a) also missed this when conducting a background check when he was first hired or (b) concluded that the charges weren't credible or that Patricia shouldn't be held to account for charges not proven in a court of law.

Or they looked into it and decided that a guy's entire career shouldn't end because of dropped charges. There's more and (a) and (b) choices here.

 

[Van Everyman]

I think it's unlikely (tho not impossible) that the Patriots knew about this. It is clear our culture and the league itself are operating on a different standard today than when Patricia was hired by the Patriots. And in a purely practical sense, unless the team had reason to believe they should conduct a background check on its existing personnel, this stuff is more likely to come up during a job interview.

As for "Patricia shouldn't be held accountable for what his fraternity did on some other campus," I think that his fraternity's proven actions make his OWN alleged actions more, not less, likely. If you are a lawyer who works for a company that illegally dumps toxic waste, you are more likely to have contributed to that mess than a lawyer on the street. And if credible charges are brought that you were involved in a separate toxic waste dumping case--and a grand jury found them to be credible--well, that deserves heightened scrutiny.

As for "this was 20 years ago," Patricia said he didn't have a chance to defend himself then -- well, he and his fraternity brother also had no repercussions that I can tell. Regardless, have at it, Matty. The floor is yours.

All of which is to say, this really sucks. He seemed to have a good story and I was looking forward to seeing how he would do with the Lions. Now, like Avery Bradley, I'm going to have a hard time watching without constantly thinking he is likely guilty of these awful charges.

 

[Super Nomario]

Why not the Patriots too? They employed the guy for a lot longer than he's been a Lions employee, so they either (a) also missed this when conducting a background check when he was first hired or (b) concluded that the charges weren't credible or that Patricia shouldn't be held to account for charges not proven in a court of law.

NE hired Patricia to be the lowest guy on the totem pole and he gradually worked his way up to DC; I don't think they should be held to the same standard of diligence as Detroit, who paid him millions of dollars to be a public face for their franchise.

EDIT: it's worth noting that Jim Bob Cooter, Detroit's OC, has his own incident: "Cooter was charged with aggravated burglary after allegedly getting into bed with a woman after climbing into the window of her apartment and stripping down to his underwear."

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2014/02/07/report-lions-hiring-jim-bob-cooter-as-qb-coach-despite-arrests/

 

[richgedman'sghost]

I think it's unlikely (tho not impossible) that the Patriots knew about this. It is clear our culture and the league itself are operating on a different standard today than when Patricia was hired by the Patriots. And in a purely practical sense, unless the team had reason to believe they should conduct a background check on its existing personnel, this stuff is more likely to come up during a job interview.

As for "Patricia shouldn't be held accountable for what his fraternity did on some other campus," I think that his fraternity's proven actions make his OWN alleged actions more, not less, likely. If you are a lawyer who works for a company that illegally dumps toxic waste, you are more likely to have contributed to that mess than a lawyer on the street. And if credible charges are brought that you were involved in a separate toxic waste dumping case--and a grand jury found them to be credible--well, that deserves heightened scrutiny.

As for "this was 20 years ago," Patricia said he didn't have a chance to defend himself then -- well, he and his fraternity brother also had no repercussions that I can tell. Regardless, have at it, Matty. The floor is yours.

All of which is to say, this really sucks. He seemed to have a good story and I was looking forward to seeing how he would do with the Lions. Now, like Avery Bradley, I'm going to have a hard time watching without constantly thinking he is likely guilty of these awful charges.

Why do you presume him guilty though? From the tone or tenor of your post, it seems like you presume Matt Patricia to be guilty. That is the problem that many innocent people face in the realm of public opinion. What is the old saying " you could indict a ham sandwich? " Need I remind you that an indictment is a very long way from a jury conviction. I try to keep an open mind while a trial progresses.
I also want to stress that I am not defending Patricia's actions in 1996 if true. If he was guilty of such charges then he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The problem is that there never was a trial so we will never know what happended that night. Meanwhile Matt Patricia will have to carry the stigma of that accusation for the rest of his life.

 

[pappymojo]

Beyond that, I find these charges credible. They were credible enough to warrant a grand jury indictment at the time. Other factors should be considered as well, including the fact that we now know that women routinely didn’t bring charges or testify about assaults because of the shame and pain associated with the process – especially while in college.

While I understand and sympathize with how painful and difficult it must be for victims of sexual abuse to testify against their attackers. and while I can certainly accept that it was even more difficult twenty years prior, I can not support the implication that this should somehow result in a lessened burden of proof when determining the guilt of the accused.

 

[Van Everyman]

Why do you presume him guilty though? From the tone or tenor of your post, it seems like you presume Matt Patricia to be guilty. That is the problem that many innocent people face in the realm of public opinion. What is the old saying " you could indict a ham sandwich? " Need I remind you that an indictment is a very long way from a jury conviction. I try to keep an open mind while a trial progresses.
I also want to stress that I am not defending Patricia's actions in 1996 if true. If he was guilty of such charges then he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The problem is that there never was a trial so we will never know what happended that night. Meanwhile Matt Patricia will have to carry the stigma of that accusation for the rest of his life.

And more likely than not, this woman will have to carry the pain of being assaulted without feeling like she was able to get a fair hearing.

As has been litigated on SoSH many times, the number of assaults that go unreported so dwarf the number of false charges that I think you almost have to presume the worst in cases like these, especially from that time period. It sucks -- in general, you want everyone to have a fair hearing.

But between the sheer number of unreported assaults and the decided lack of motive to falsely accuse someone, it's hard to see why anyone but the most sociopathic women would make false assault accusations. The whole "she was ashamed because she had sex when she was drunk" argument simply doesn't compare to the awful scrutiny accusers still go through to bring charges against someone -- the questions about her character, our cultural presumption that women do things that make them more likely to be raped (dress or act a certain way, etc.).

Just as an example, I mentioned Patricia's fraternity getting booted off of Rochester's campus after committing a gang rape. My wife actually informed the school that two women she knew had been assaulted by one of the guys involved -- and the administration's response was, "Well, if that's the case, those women need to come before the board and testify to what happened." There was absolutely no empathy for her as a potential victim or concern about whether she was getting the care she needed. It was "As far as we're concerned, this didn't happen until we have a clear record that it did." Effectively, the university was more interested in protecting the institution than the students who were most likely assaulted. This was the same at virtually every school in the 90s -- and is still the case in a lot of places.

Edit: I would say that at a bare minimum, Patricia has an obligation to speak in some detail about this. Which is to say, answer questions about whether he knew this woman, etc. And, the team has an obligation to ask him to.

 

[JimD]

Did anyone else find Patricia's statement to be a bit too strident? I completely get the desire to firmly declare his innocence, but claiming that this story was dug up "with the only purpose being to damage my character and reputation” just doesn't strike the right tone in my opinion. Patricia is a smart guy and shouldn't be surprised that someone found this in the current MeToo era.

 

[Omar's Wacky Neighbor]

Don't look at social media. The reason this is just coming out now is because Roger and 345 Park have been covering for the Pats/Kraft.

 

[DJnVa]

Edit: I would say that at a bare minimum, Patricia has an obligation to speak in some detail about this. Which is to say, answer questions about whether he knew this woman, etc. And, the team has an obligation to ask him to.

He just had a press conference and answered questions.

 

[DJnVa]

Did anyone else find Patricia's statement to be a bit too strident? I completely get the desire to firmly declare his innocence, but claiming that this story was dug up "with the only purpose being to damage my character and reputation” just doesn't strike the right tone in my opinion.

Not at all. From his POV, if he's innocent, then of course he's course he's going to be upset.

 

[riboflav]

Not at all. From his POV, if he's innocent, then of course he's course he's going to be upset.

This whole idea that those who are now falsely accused (if he indeed was) must be mindful of the general climate is beyond bizarre to me.

 

[Time to Mo Vaughn]

And more likely than not, this woman will have to carry the pain of being assaulted without feeling like she was able to get a fair hearing.

As has been litigated on SoSH many times, the number of assaults that go unreported so dwarf the number of false charges that I think you almost have to presume the worst in cases like these, especially from that time period. It sucks -- in general, you want everyone to have a fair hearing.

But between the sheer number of unreported assaults and the decided lack of motive to falsely accuse someone, it's hard to see why anyone but the most sociopathic women would make false assault accusations. The whole "she was ashamed because she had sex when she was drunk" argument simply doesn't compare to the awful scrutiny accusers still go through to bring charges against someone -- the questions about her character, our cultural presumption that women do things that make them more likely to be raped (dress or act a certain way, etc.).

Just as an example, I mentioned Patricia's fraternity getting booted off of Rochester's campus after committing a gang rape. My wife actually informed the school that two women she knew had been assaulted by one of the guys involved -- and the administration's response was, "Well, if that's the case, those women need to come before the board and testify to what happened." There was absolutely no empathy for her as a potential victim or concern about whether she was getting the care she needed. It was "As far as we're concerned, this didn't happen until we have a clear record that it did." Effectively, the university was more interested in protecting the institution than the students who were most likely assaulted. This was the same at virtually every school in the 90s -- and is still the case in a lot of places.

Edit: I would say that at a bare minimum, Patricia has an obligation to speak in some detail about this. Which is to say, answer questions about whether he knew this woman, etc. And, the team has an obligation to ask him to.

I think it's pretty clear that the reason you're pushing Patricia so hard as guilty is due to your own wife's experience with another Theta Chi member at a different school. You've implied multiple times that because Patricia is in Theta Chi and because Theta Chi was kicked off of Rochester's campus for sexual assault that sexual assault is just part of the culture of this large national fraternity and therefore he must be guilty.

I think this might be where Otter's speech comes into play "But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America."

I was also in a fraternity at Rennselaer. It wasn't Theta Chi, but a large international fraternity like it, and there were incidents(mostly hazing) that occurred at many chapters of my fraternity that I would be ashamed to be associated with, but had absolutely no relevance or association with anything we did at our chapter. There are also people that have worked at the same companies I've worked at or rooted for the same sports teams that have committed horrible crimes, and I'd hate to be associated with all of them just because of a common connection. To insinuate that Patricia must be guilty because Rochester's Theta Chi chapter was abhorrent is pretty insane. By the way, Theta Chi at RPI is only one of the houses that was predominantly football players, there was also Phi Tau and Pikes. It is unfortunate that we live in a society where there are fraternity members or athletes who commit rape, but that does not mean that all fraternity members or athletes are also rapists. There are also nerdy video game playing baseball messageboarding rapists.

It is excellent that the MeToo movement has empowered more people to stand up against sexual assault and given more victims the confidence and support to both name and prosecute attackers (see Bill Cosby), but there's still some level of trial that's needed. It also doesn't prevent you from being able to sit on your couch and "watching without constantly thinking he is likely guilty of these awful charges".

 

[Mystic Merlin]

Can one really be 'too strident' in denying a rape accusation?

 

[cromulence]

However you feel about this, there's one thing we can all agree on: dude looks rough. That beard is unspeakable.

 

[Van Everyman]

I think it's pretty clear that the reason you're pushing Patricia so hard as guilty is due to your own wife's experience with another Theta Chi member at a different school. You've implied multiple times that because Patricia is in Theta Chi and because Theta Chi was kicked off of Rochester's campus for sexual assault that sexual assault is just part of the culture of this large national fraternity and therefore he must be guilty.

I think this might be where Otter's speech comes into play "But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America."

I was also in a fraternity at Rennselaer. It wasn't Theta Chi, but a large international fraternity like it, and there were incidents(mostly hazing) that occurred at many chapters of my fraternity that I would be ashamed to be associated with, but had absolutely no relevance or association with anything we did at our chapter. There are also people that have worked at the same companies I've worked at or rooted for the same sports teams that have committed horrible crimes, and I'd hate to be associated with all of them just because of a common connection. To insinuate that Patricia must be guilty because Rochester's Theta Chi chapter was abhorrent is pretty insane. By the way, Theta Chi at RPI is only one of the houses that was predominantly football players, there was also Phi Tau and Pikes. It is unfortunate that we live in a society where there are fraternity members or athletes who commit rape, but that does not mean that all fraternity members or athletes are also rapists. There are also nerdy video game playing baseball messageboarding rapists.

It is excellent that the MeToo movement has empowered more people to stand up against sexual assault and given more victims the confidence and support to both name and prosecute attackers (see Bill Cosby), but there's still some level of trial that's needed. It also doesn't prevent you from being able to sit on your couch and "watching without constantly thinking he is likely guilty of these awful charges".

The Rolling Stone UVA story showed the dangers of when you twist facts to suit a narrative on this issue. I am fully aware of this am completely understand where you might feel a bit persecuted here.

But I haven’t said Patricia *must* be guilty by association. I’m saying, yeah, he’s more likely to be. And it's not just because he's in a fraternity or that fraternity -- it's also because he was a football player as schools have shown time and again that they protect their athletes from misconduct allegations.

Is that fair to every football player in fraternities like Theta Chi? Probably not. But let’s be honest: fraternities and athletic programs have pretty much puked all over themselves when it comes to preventing sexual assault over the years. Maybe yours did. Maybe not. But regardless, this isn’t “one bad apple.” It’s cultural. It’s institutional. And it's a big fucking problem.

Before #MeToo I believed there was at least some chance that guys accused of credible charges might not be guilty. Maybe not likely to be innocent but possible. I am now at the point that I believe there is almost no chance because unless it’s some celebrity there is absolutely no upside to bringing these charges, a ton of downside and the scope of assault in our society is so much worse than I believed it was. That's why I felt this way about the Patricia story before my wife even told me about Rochester's Theta Chi situation.

 

[gingerbreadmann]

It is excellent that the MeToo movement has empowered more people to stand up against sexual assault and given more victims the confidence and support to both name and prosecute attackers (see Bill Cosby), but there's still some level of trial that's needed.

There's always a but.

As it stands right now the worst thing Patricia has had to face is an uncomfortable 8-minute press conference in which he sidestepped answering direct questions about what happened and portrayed himself as the victim for having to answer for this at all. Ironically, he never even had to face a trial.

Not a single one of us knows what happened, and that is anything but a reason to rush to his defense. It is more clear than ever before that men accused of sexual crimes do not deserve the benefit of the doubt, and I would argue that Patricia so far has not come close to answering for this nor grasping why people expect him to.

 

[pappymojo]

The Rolling Stone UVA story showed the dangers of when you twist facts to suit a narrative on this issue. I am fully aware of this am completely understand where you might feel a bit persecuted here.

But I haven’t said Patricia *must* be guilty by association. I’m saying, yeah, he’s more likely to be. And it's not just because he's in a fraternity or that fraternity -- it's also because he was a football player as schools have shown time and again that they protect their athletes from misconduct allegations.

Is that fair to every football player in fraternities like Theta Chi? Probably not. But let’s be honest: fraternities and athletic programs have pretty much puked all over themselves when it comes to preventing sexual assault over the years. Maybe yours did. Maybe not. But regardless, this isn’t “one bad apple.” It’s cultural. It’s institutional. And it's a big fucking problem.

Before #MeToo I believed there was at least some chance that guys accused of credible charges might not be guilty. Maybe not likely to be innocent but possible. I am now at the point that I believe there is almost no chance because unless it’s some celebrity there is absolutely no upside to bringing these charges, a ton of downside and the scope of assault in our society is so much worse than I believed it was. That's why I felt this way about the Patricia story before my wife even told me about Rochester's Theta Chi situation.

Since when do people need an upside to do something? People sometimes do things rashly based on emotions - jealousy, anger, shame, etc.

 

[Marciano490]

Since when do people need an upside to do something? People sometimes do things rashly based on emotions - jealousy, anger, shame, etc.

Studies and evidence show you’re wrong here.

 

[pappymojo]

Studies and evidence show you’re wrong here.

There are studies that show people only do things when there is an upside? Do people never murder other people based on anger?

 

[Marciano490]

There are studies that show people only do things when there is an upside? Do people never murder other people based on anger?

We’re not talking about things. We’re talking about falsely reporting a rape or sexual assault.

 

[Van Everyman]

Can one really be 'too strident' in denying a rape accusation?

I actually agree with this. I am hesitant to blow anyone up based on a press conference. Yes, Patricia comes off really defensive based on the quotes I read -- but guilty or innocent, who wouldn't? Either you're guilty of a horrible crime or you're being accused of one. To bring this full circle, I give you Brady's #DFG press conference, for which he was killed because he seemed so shaken. Or the Duke lacrosse kid, who was so angry when he spoke that I think most people just assumed he must be guilty.

In general, I have come to believe there is a natural tendency for people--particularly high profile people--to come off incredibly self-pitying and aggrieved when accused of terrible things regardless of their guilt or innocence. This is something I've experienced in my job. Even when it seems so obvious that public sentiment runs against them--sentiment that could be mitigated by validating the serious nature of their concerns--the default position most people go to is "How could anyone possibly think I was capable of such a thing?" and "This is incredibly unfair to me!" There are a lot of reasons for it -- from arrogance and narcissism to a genuine blind spot for people who actually were victims of these kinds of things.

But I think the biggest reason is anger -- right or wrong, the sheer terror of being exposed for this kind of thing on the national stage causes people to lash out and paint themselves as the victim. So I think it just isn't a good basis on which to form much of an opinion.

 

[pappymojo]

We’re not talking about things. We’re talking about falsely reporting a rape or sexual assault.

We're talking about what motivates human beings to do things. Murder is an action that is far worse than falsely reporting a rape and yet people commit murder all the time because they get really angry over some stupid insignificant thing. For example, someone shoots someone else because they cut them off in traffic.

If we can accept that people can commit murder based on solely on anger and with no apparent upside to committing the murder, we have to accept that people can do far less serious actions (such as lying about someone else or falsely accusing someone of sexual assault) based on anger or other emotions.

Edit: typo - changed or to of in the last sentence.

 

[InstaFace]

However you feel about this, there's one thing we can all agree on: dude looks rough. That beard is unspeakable.

We certainly cannot agree on that. I think it's awesome, fits him perfectly, and helps the league be a little less militaristic in its general demeanor. And I say that sitting here as a clean-shaven guy in a dress shirt in a corporate office.

It is more clear than ever before that men accused of sexual crimes do not deserve the benefit of the doubt, and I would argue that Patricia so far has not come close to answering for this nor grasping why people expect him to.

This is where I'm at. The pendulum was so incredibly, terribly far off in favor of protecting men who've done awful things, that if it swings a little past the median and ropes in some innocents while also knocking off the pedestal a ton of people who have treated women shittily - without the court of public opinion first requiring a jury trial - I will consider that a net step forward in the interests of justice. Some men might lose their jobs or their reputations over a false accusation? So long as many times more than that number who have done bad shit get got (and that there remain consequences for a truly fabricated accusation), I'm OK with the tradeoff.

"If the idea makes you scared that you might someday be vulnerable to a false accusation - great. Cherish that feeling. Dive into it... and now imagine that you're a woman, with the parallel case of something having happened to you but nobody being interested in listening. Where you lose your reputation, but also have crippling PTSD and anxiety from having been treated like a piece of meat not just by some rapist, but by society at large - and your assailant waltzes with zero consequence. Once you can really put yourself in those shoes, maybe you then have some standing to feel nervous about your own situation."

I'm not sure what's known would justify Matty P losing his job, but I'm 100% OK with him being scared, and acting scared, and getting other rich white dudes scared. We're not nearly scared enough.

 

[bakahump]

It is more clear than ever before that men accused of sexual crimes do not deserve the benefit of the doubt,

Do you really believe this?
Is "Benefit of the Doubt" the same as "innocent until proven guilty"? I would think it is but maybe I am misunderstanding you.

If thats what your saying, I dont believe that all. Not that I am right and you are wrong just personal beliefs I guess. I am just curious if this is a knee jerk reaction to a sad situation.

I guess I believe
1. A false accusation of a man can be as harmful to their life as a sexual assault can be on a woman.
2. That people are people, male or female. While a man might sexually assault a woman because he feels he is "owed" something, I believe its entirely possible that a woman might falsely accuse a man (or woman for that matter) because they feel they are "owed something". Imagine a bad breakup. A jealous ex. Extortion for money. As Marciano says people do things for alot of reasons. Does that mean every woman is a harpy trying to ruin a man? Of course not. Conversly how can every man be a Bill Cosby level douchebag?
3. That every situation needs to be examined individually. This case may indeed show Patricia as a evil jerk who deserve(d)s prison. Or it may show a manipulative woman trying to cash in on an consensual one night stands future success.
4. I feel that the real goal of MeToo should be to educate and encourage woman of CONTEMPORARY and FUTURE sexual assaults to report immediately and feel no shame in doing so. To be secure that they will get a fair shake and that any allegation would be thoroughly investigated as completely as possible and force the truly guilty to face legal consequences. Not just bad PR 20 years down the line. Unfortunately it seems that it has become a witch hunt. A witch hunt where 50 or 60 or even 90% of those accused are indeed guilty of terrible things. But also a witch hunt that will sweep up innocent people because of societies tendency to overreact.
5. Arent we all as males guilty? Not literally, but to pretend that "the casting couch" was not a thing or that women all over the country where not sexually assaulted for the last 100 (relatively modern) years is a bit disingenuous. We all knew. We all kinda ignored it. Is the "Every accused Man deserves to be treated as guilty full stop" a Knee jerk reaction to this? Does that mean we should continue that ignorance? Absolutely not! But there has to be a better way then saying "Oh he was accused of something? Then he must have done it"

 

[OurF'ingCity]

Or they looked into it and decided that a guy's entire career shouldn't end because of dropped charges.

I don't disagree with you. That was basically what I was trying to say with my "(b)" choice.

Patricia is a smart guy and shouldn't be surprised that someone found this in the current MeToo era.

Yeah, that's the weirdest part for me. I get not wanting to dredge up skeletons, especially if you firmly believe you are innocent and nothing came of it, but given (at minimum) the PR implications how could you not tell the Lions at some point "hey, I should mention this thing that happened a long time ago, there's no validity to it, but..." (This is assuming the Lions are being honest when they said they didn't know about it; if Patrica did tell the Lions that, and now they are just trying to cover their asses, I'd be furious if I was him.)

 

[DJnVa]

We’re not talking about things. We’re talking about falsely reporting a rape or sexual assault.

That specifically happened in the UVA case. She reported a rape to make another boy jealous no?