Colin Kaepernick being investigated for sexual assault
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
You scrounging around very little information for a narrative that makes her the villain and/ or complicit in it if it happened? And then extolling the virtues of waiting before assuming?
Nope.
Nope.
You got the nope right. I'm not saying any of that, nor do I think it.
I was responding to Baka, who asked if anyone could make sense of a quote that seemed to have contradictory facts based on a very limited amount of information. But since you're so good at pulling facts out of nothing, why don't you take a crack at a headline that says "Kaepernick investigated for sexual assault" and reconcile that with her statement that says "we did not have sex".
It's all speculation at this point until we get some real info, I thought I made that clear when I typed "its a reach" in my first sentence.
I was responding to Baka, who asked if anyone could make sense of a quote that seemed to have contradictory facts based on a very limited amount of information. But since you're so good at pulling facts out of nothing, why don't you take a crack at a headline that says "Kaepernick investigated for sexual assault" and reconcile that with her statement that says "we did not have sex".
It's all speculation at this point until we get some real info, I thought I made that clear when I typed "its a reach" in my first sentence.
Odds are obviously high that he won't be charged (just bc of the nature of these things) but this has to put the contract talks on ice for a while, right? You can't sign a guy to a massive new contract if there's even the remotest possibility of him being charged with sexual assault in the next couple months.
PaulinMyrBch said:
I'm not good at pulling facts from nothing, which is why I kept my fucking mouth shut and refrained from projecting dipshit guesses onto a situation I'm not even remotely fully aware of.
So you countered baka with more baka. Cool, I was clearly way off.
Problem is you didn't keep your fucking mouth shut. You just didn't speculate. So stay out of the fucking discussion since your obviously not in agreement with the level of the discussion. When we get it up to your standards, I'm sure you'll let us know.
Just throwing this out there but not every jurisdiction requires sex to charge sexual assault. Sexual assault could be a sexual battery which would include a non consensual act of the following: " 'Sexual battery' means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object; however, sexual battery does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose." - FL Statute 794.011PaulinMyrBch said:
Disclaimer- I don't practice in Florida and I'm doing legal research on my iPad. Just trying to find an alternative answer to the question.
To be a successful mobile QB in the league you need a felony rap sheet. Big Ben, Vick, McNair, VY, and now mr. Tattoos (that's sarcasm as I have one and want 2 more). This is just par for the course.
edit: phone autocorrections.
edit: phone autocorrections.
As others have pointed out its a bit early to say how this will play out. A lot depends on the rape kit *and* inherent believability of the victim. If there's DNA and she's believeable the allegations could easily result in a prosecution, even without memory. If there's one but not the other, it'll be much tougher. Right now we have no data on either.
PS. The believability issue goes to her claim she did not have consensual sex that night with Kaepernick.
PS. The believability issue goes to her claim she did not have consensual sex that night with Kaepernick.
PaulinMyrBch said:
I was actually not in agreement with your level of discussion which, as per usual, is completely abysmal and boneheaded. But yeah, you're right, your breakdown of how the bong story was likely someone "setting up a story for later" and all that other insightful wisdom pulled directly out of your ass was definitely valuable! Keep it coming.
*you're
Dear God no. Just me reading his "early takes" on news stories with no information? That's selfish.
SMU_Sox said:
I dunno. I think the Bi-Annual Lombardis Sexual Assault Thread offers real value in showing people without direct experience in the area how these issues tend to go down.
This is like a pro bono thread for the forum. Public Service, yo--shit's real.
SeoulSoxFan said:
Seems like this has pretty big disaster potential. The tweets are obviously not vetted. The guy may be totally innocent, but any inconsistency in his responses to this will be hammered. Any inconsistency could also be used to argue that he's guiltily later - a lot of people don't know this, but if you make 100 statements about an event, with 99 being correct and one being false, there's an excellent chance the *only* thing a potential jury gets to hear is the false statement.
Usually if someone under investigation wants to appear forthcoming to the public, they can make a statement that includes some facts that are not (and could never reasonably be) in controversy. However, you shouldn't call a (victim/alleged victim/complainant) a liar from the get go.
Perhaps, but we all remember what Sherman did the last time Kaep tried to "score".Marciano490 said:
"Russell Wilson is a successful mobile QB in the league without a felony rap sheet" (the exception) "proves" that a successful mobile QB in the league needs a felony rap sheet.(the rule).DrewDawg said:
The word police on SoSH are obnoxious.
steveluck7 said:
Yes, we do. That's the joke. I'd call you Roethlisberger, but that seems odd in this thread/context.
Sigh. What's more obnoxious? Correcting a mistake, or being wrong and doubling down on it?
If you see a sign that says: "Parking Prohibited On Sunday" then you can infer that parking is permitted by rule the other 6 days. The exception (no parking on Sunday) proves the rule (it's allowed on the other days).
If you see a sign that says: "Parking Prohibited On Sunday" then you can infer that parking is permitted by rule the other 6 days. The exception (no parking on Sunday) proves the rule (it's allowed on the other days).
I mis-wrote. I should have stated:Reverend said:
"Other than Russell Wilson, a successful mobile QB in the league must have a felony rap sheet" (the exception) "proves" that a successful mobile QB in the league must have a felony rap sheet.(the rule).
SMU_Sox said:
DanoooME said:
These two statement, mean "Other than Russell Wilson, a successful mobile QB in the league must have a felony rap sheet". Rusell Wilson is the exception that proves the rule "To be a successful mobile QB in the league you need a felony rap sheet.."
Reverend said:
hlord:This is my last post on this topic.
Dude, there's a difference in saying "There's an exception to every rule" and "The exception proves the rule". That's what you're hung up on. They do not mean the same thing.
http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/exception.html
http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/exception.html
MalzoneExpress said:
These two statement, mean "Other than Russell Wilson, a successful mobile QB in the league must have a felony rap sheet". Rusell Wilson is the exception that proves the rule "To be a successful mobile QB in the league you need a felony rap sheet.."
This is my last post on this topic.
(NSFW)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aa2umu1vILI#t=204
RSN Diaspora said:
You don't think many people (I'd say women, but Rev will yell at me maybe) grow up thinking about how their wedding day is going to be bright and shiny, and just all around perfect? If so, rain on your wedding day is a prime example of situational irony. Expecting a sunny day is implied in the lyric.