Derrick Rose Accused of Drugging and Gang Raping Ex-Girlfriend

[Kooz]

That filing is fucking horrifying.
 

 
Extremely long on detailed allegations with zero evidence or corroboration. The kicker is paragraphs 44 and 45. Jane's roommate slept through the alleged incident (44). Various details about the scene the next morning are then described ("condoms strewn about the room") but conspicuously absent from paragraph 45 is the roommate as a witness. In fact, the roommate disappears from the narrative altogether. 
 
This case will be dismissed at the door. 

 

[HomeRunBaker]

Yes but why not hang Rose right now just in case there is something to it without waiting for the claim to be proven?  TMZ went headline hunting too with the "ex-girlfriend" tag as it appears she was a road trip hookup for Rose. Some of the comments in this thread are pretty disgusting but to each their own.

 

[crystalline]

 
Extremely long on detailed allegations with zero evidence or corroboration. The kicker is paragraphs 44 and 45. Jane's roommate slept through the alleged incident (44). Various details about the scene the next morning are then described ("condoms strewn about the room") but conspicuously absent from paragraph 45 is the roommate as a witness. In fact, the roommate disappears from the narrative altogether. 
 
This case will be dismissed at the door. 

Presumably the roommate will testify she saw a man in the apartment who tried to enter her room. They have Allen on speakerphone talking about drugging her, with a witness to testify to that. And they will have a coworker to testify to Jane's state at work the next morning and that she said it was a rape the next morning.

If they can place Rose at the apartment that night, after her friend took her away from Rose after a drugging, the civil case seems likely to stick, no? Maybe there will be cell phone records, obviating the need for the roommate's testimony.

 

[Kooz]

Presumably the roommate will testify she saw a man in the apartment who tried to enter her room. They have Allen on speakerphone talking about drugging her, with a witness to testify to that. And they will have a coworker to testify to Jane's state at work the next morning and that she said it was a rape the next morning.

If they can place Rose at the apartment that night, after her friend took her away from Rose after a drugging, the civil case seems likely to stick, no? Maybe there will be cell phone records, obviating the need for the roommate's testimony.

 
All of that is very thin though.
 
A man in the apartment doesn't prove or imply gang rape, even if the (drunken) roommate believes the man entered her room. Opening a door and gang raping somebody else are entirely different things. If anything, the fact that the drunken roommate could close the door and fall asleep casts doubt on whether the men in the apartment were in a gang rape state of mind. Sounds like a very polite rapist. 
 
I didn't read that Allen said anything but "I didn't know you were drugged." Maybe I missed it. The context for that can easily be imagined as the plaintiff saying, "I was drugged" and Allen saying "I didn't know that." The alleged timing of this conversation is also a problem for the plaintiff. 
 
The co-worker thing is also very thin hearsay. Looking bad the next day doesn't prove gang rape. The plaintiff claims only flashes of memory of the rape and presumably doesn't remember her own behavior. Did the co-worker take any steps to make the story more robust or question it in any way? This is why hearsay doesn't work in court. 
 
Now, if criminal charges had been pressed at the time or there had been even a shred of physical evidence (good thing for the defendants they allegedly used condoms btw), then some of that stuff would be part of the picture, but in and of itself it's all pretty worthless. 
 
If we are believing things at face value because they are alleged, then let's believe Rose's attorney, presumably sober, who said that the plaintiff is on her fourth lawyer (lawyers tend to drop cases when they are a waste of time or when pursuing them is seen to be unethical) and has been trying to press this for two years (years, by the way, where Rose was sitting out and had less reputation to lose).
 
There's a normal process here, and it fits a shakedown. The plaintiff draws up a complaint and sends it to the defendant with a note saying "This will be filed unless X, Y, Z." If X, Y, Z doesn't happen, then there is a filing. The timing here suggests that's what's going on. Contact late July, threat in mid-August, filing on the doorstep of training camp. That's the most plausible explanation. The next step will be a successful motion to dismiss.  

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

 
A man in the apartment doesn't prove or imply gang rape, even if the (drunken) roommate believes the man entered her room. Opening a door and gang raping somebody else are entirely different things. If anything, the fact that the drunken roommate could close the door and fall asleep casts doubt on whether the men in the apartment were in a gang rape state of mind. Sounds like a very polite rapist. 
 

 
Run me through what a "gang rape state of mind" entails?

 

[Devizier]

The fact that this is a civil suit raises some flags, but the burden of proof is much lower in civil cases, right? If this is a shakedown -- the words that Rose's lawyer used --  then I'd be *shocked* if there wasn't some attempts to communicate demands to Rose ahead of the fact. If this were the case, wouldn't they have come out with them already?

 

[CoRP]

 
Run me through what a "gang rape state of mind" entails?

Something opposite of "polite"?

 

[twibnotes]

The only people I'm making fun of for being MRA shitbags are MRA shitbags. That doesn't mean that otherwise well-intentioned people aren't being harmful, in the large, through their actions. "Let's wait for both sides" is an implicit attack on the credibility and the personal worth of the accuser.

Are you saying there should be no due process or that no one can comment on that process or speculate about the accused possibly being innocent? I'm legitimately confused.

It's clear that your passion comes from a desire to protect victims, but "waiting for both sides" to be played out is kind of an important foundation in a society that values justice for everyone.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

Something opposite of "polite"?

 
If 3 men are taking turns fucking a passed out woman, it doesn't really matter if two of them are sitting in the living room drinking tea and reading Emily Post's Etiquette, it's still gang rape. Kooz--a cool lurker who created an account just to talk about how flimsy a rape accusation is--seems to think that gang rape must be inherently violent, and that the only way this could have gone down is if Rose and his friends kicked the door down while chanting rape. 
 
There's no standard way rapists act. There's no standard way rape victims act. There's no standard way rapes go down, and there's no standard reason they occur. There are plenty of people here justifiably saying "let's wait until the facts come out" and leaving it at that, which is absolutely fine by me. Everybody deserves a fair trial. But there are also people who have made up their mind about Rose's guilt--either because the victim didn't file criminal charges, or because of pre-conceived ideas of what rape looks like--and are using the phrase "let's wait until the facts come out as a means of suggesting that the facts that will come out will cast the victim in a negative light. 

 

[Kooz]

The fact that this is a civil suit raises some flags, but the burden of proof is much lower in civil cases, right? If this is a shakedown -- the words that Rose's lawyer used --  then I'd be *shocked* if there wasn't some attempts to communicate demands to Rose ahead of the fact. If this were the case, wouldn't they have come out with them already?

 
Demands are communicated prior to every civil suit. It's in the interest of the plaintiff to keep the demands private. I'm not sure I understand the point. 
 
 

 Kooz--a cool lurker who created an account just to talk about how flimsy a rape accusation is--seems to think

 
 
 
Apparently Grin&MartyBarret is a tough guy mind reader who doesn't need "facts" to hop up on a high and mighty bully pulpit. 
 
 

 
There are plenty of people here justifiably saying "let's wait until the facts come out" 

 
 
If any of these "facts" were evidence of a crime they would have been in the complaint. 

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

 
Demands are communicated prior to every civil suit. It's in the interest of the plaintiff to keep the demands private. I'm not sure I understand the point. 
 
 
 
 
 
Apparently Grin&MartyBarret is a tough guy mind reader who doesn't need "facts" to hop up on a high and mighty bully pulpit. 
 
 
 
 
If any of these "facts" were evidence of a crime they would have been in the complaint. 

Feel free to explain the "gang rape state of mind" bit further.

 

[Devizier]

Demands are communicated prior to every civil suit. It's in the interest of the plaintiff to keep the demands private. I'm not sure I understand the point. . 

I'm envisioning a scenario where Rose's team offers counter allegations, saying something like "Plaintiff previously contacted Rose with demands for X, Y, and Z financial recourse and/or personal favors". Honestly, I tend to stay the fuck away from these celebrity cases but the NBA is far away and the Red Sox and NFL aren't going to do it for me this year.

 

[Marciano490]

Settlement offers aren't admissible in evidence.  Also, who cares if she wanted to settle privately and quietly instead of having to go through this publicly?  It's indicative or probative of nothing.

 

[Rovin Romine]

The fact that this is a civil suit raises some flags, but the burden of proof is much lower in civil cases, right? If this is a shakedown -- the words that Rose's lawyer used --  then I'd be *shocked* if there wasn't some attempts to communicate demands to Rose ahead of the fact. If this were the case, wouldn't they have come out with them already?

 
Criminal is "beyond a reasonable doubt" while civil (usually) is "preponderance."  So in criminal cases, if there's a scenario that gives rise to a "reasonable" doubt in the jury's mind, the defendant should be acquitted.   In civil cases, preponderance means that the side which puts on the greater weight of evidence wins - not necessarily more, but, if the jury had to pick a winner and a loser at the end of the day, the side that has a 51% chance or greater being right wins, and the side that has a 49% chance or less of being right looses.  
 
The most obvious wrinkles are these:  Each standard is applied to each charge or count of the complaint, so in a civil case side A might win on counts 1 and 2, but side B might win on count 3.  It depends on the counts and the facts.  Also, there can be affirmative defenses and certain statutes that shift or enhance a burden; a defendant asserting an alibi is usually the easiest example.  (Basically if the alibi is tight and can't be disproven, the jury should acquit/find for the person asserting the alibi.)
 
***
So, given the above, you have to consider that there are a lot of factual scenarios where a jury might have a reasonable doubt as to criminal guilt on a set of facts, but think that there's probably a 75% chance that things went down the civil plaintiff claims they did. Think of OJ Simpson - the criminal case wasn't proven to the jury, but the civil case was proven at the lower standard.  
 
So it's not really unusual to see a civil case brought when a criminal case seems like it might have a reasonable doubt hardwired into it.  However, we don't see as many completely "stand alone" civil cases because the following dynamics (and more) apply:
1) The state pays for the criminal investigation and has broad powers to issue warrants/subpoena people.  The plaintiff has to pay for all of that investigation (plus attorney's fees) in a civil case.  So it's rare when there's: 1) enough doubt not to even warrant a solid and completely fleshed out criminal investigation (not prosecution), and 2) enough proof "out there" to the extent it might convince a civil jury.
2) Criminal cases bring a certain amount of "justice" with them in that the defendant, if found guilty, is punished by the state and may have to pay the victim money ("restitution").  In a civil case, if the plaintiff prevails, they only get a judgment  - meaning they still have to take affirmative steps to collect money damages for the wrongs they suffered.  So there's a real question as to what the plaintiff is getting out of it at the end of the process.  Do they want to pay a lot of money for the validation of 6 strangers on a jury?  Does the plaintiff have the money to stay the course?  Does the defendant have enough money to make that worthwhile for them?   
3) Sort of a corollary, but when there's enough proof to convince a criminal jury, the civil suit might follow on the heels of the criminal process.  There are some constitutional evidence-gathering and due process considerations to take into account, but you can think of it like this - if the State can prove the facts beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury, the civil case is basically a no-brainer, since they'll be able to prove the same set of facts (most likely) beyond 50%.  Sometimes it's automatic - depending on the relationship between what the criminal and civil cases are alleging.  It's just another reason why "paired" criminal/civil actions are more common.  

 

[Devizier]

Rovin'  ---
 
An excellent, and clarifying, statement.

 

[Rovin Romine]

 
All of that is very thin though.
 
A man in the apartment doesn't prove or imply gang rape, even if the (drunken) roommate believes the man entered her room. Opening a door and gang raping somebody else are entirely different things. If anything, the fact that the drunken roommate could close the door and fall asleep casts doubt on whether the men in the apartment were in a gang rape state of mind. Sounds like a very polite rapist. 
 
I didn't read that Allen said anything but "I didn't know you were drugged." Maybe I missed it. The context for that can easily be imagined as the plaintiff saying, "I was drugged" and Allen saying "I didn't know that." The alleged timing of this conversation is also a problem for the plaintiff. 
 
The co-worker thing is also very thin hearsay. Looking bad the next day doesn't prove gang rape. The plaintiff claims only flashes of memory of the rape and presumably doesn't remember her own behavior. Did the co-worker take any steps to make the story more robust or question it in any way? This is why hearsay doesn't work in court. 
 
Now, if criminal charges had been pressed at the time or there had been even a shred of physical evidence (good thing for the defendants they allegedly used condoms btw), then some of that stuff would be part of the picture, but in and of itself it's all pretty worthless. 
 
If we are believing things at face value because they are alleged, then let's believe Rose's attorney, presumably sober, who said that the plaintiff is on her fourth lawyer (lawyers tend to drop cases when they are a waste of time or when pursuing them is seen to be unethical) and has been trying to press this for two years (years, by the way, where Rose was sitting out and had less reputation to lose).
 
There's a normal process here, and it fits a shakedown. The plaintiff draws up a complaint and sends it to the defendant with a note saying "This will be filed unless X, Y, Z." If X, Y, Z doesn't happen, then there is a filing. The timing here suggests that's what's going on. Contact late July, threat in mid-August, filing on the doorstep of training camp. That's the most plausible explanation. The next step will be a successful motion to dismiss.  

 
Not to nit pick, but sometimes a civil plaintiff goes through attorneys because, while they have a meritorious case, the attorneys are financing the case (contingency fee basis) and may disagree with the plaintiff on certain particulars.  I've had a couple of cases where I completely believed in my clients, but just couldn't continue on the case.  I've had others where I've been retained, did some investigation (including reaching out to the other side) and then decided it was something I didn't want to be involved in (for whatever reason.)  
 
I'm also completely unsurprised that this may have taken two years to put together - especially if there's been any kind of possible settlement negotiations between the attorneys.  
 
***
 
As a broader point, at the end of the day a young woman says she was drugged, raped, and felt ashamed about it afterward.  That's not a "thin" case, in the sense that it's totally plausible.   
 
While the devil's in the details, if all the other connective tissue holds together, she does have a chance to prevail in front of a jury.  I think it's particularly suspicious that she'd be grossly impaired (her testimony, her friends, the cab driver's, etc.) and then consent to having one to three guys over to her apartment that same evening.  Presumably there would be text messages or a phone record if she invited them.   It's also telling that she spoke to her work friend about the incident the following day.   Again, it hinges on the work friend's credibility, but the pieces of information hang together - the gross impairment in the evening, the sober friend as a witness, the cab ride home, the cab driver as a witness, the strange man in the apartment, the roommate as a witness, and telling a friend about the rape the next morning.  It does not really paint a picture of 'the woman scorned' or 'mentally disturbed' or so forth.   Then there's the church friend who heard the confession/statement party opponent by Allen one month later that group sex happened and he was unaware she was drugged.   How did he even know her being or not being drugged was on the table?  (Again, lots of details we don't know about.)
 
I'm not weighing down on the issue, but unless there are more details unknown to us, I don't think this is fodder for a Motion to Dismiss.  There is a valid claim here.
 

Rovin'  ---
 
An excellent, and clarifying, statement.

 
Anytime. 

 

[Kooz]

 
As a broader point, at the end of the day a young woman says she was drugged, raped, and felt ashamed about it afterward.  That's not a "thin" case, in the sense that it's totally plausible.   
 

 
 
Great posts, and, to be clear, it's entirely plausible that it happened. The allegations are horrifying. 
 
 
 

 
 While the devil's in the details, if all the other connective tissue holds together, she does have a chance to prevail in front of a jury.  I think it's particularly suspicious that she'd be grossly impaired (her testimony, her friends, the cab driver's, etc.) and then consent to having one to three guys over to her apartment that same evening.  Presumably there would be text messages or a phone record if she invited them.   It's also telling that she spoke to her work friend about the incident the following day.   Again, it hinges on the work friend's credibility, but the pieces of information hang together - the gross impairment in the evening, the sober friend as a witness, the cab ride home, the cab driver as a witness, the strange man in the apartment, the roommate as a witness, and telling a friend about the rape the next morning.  It does not really paint a picture of 'the woman scorned' or 'mentally disturbed' or so forth.   Then there's the church friend who heard the confession/statement party opponent by Allen one month later that group sex happened and he was unaware she was drugged.   How did he even know her being or not being drugged was on the table?  (Again, lots of details we don't know about.)
 

 
 
Yes, the devil is in the details, but I read every one of those alleged facts as thin. Do you really think it would take two years to bring that complaint? Hard to see. 

 

[Rovin Romine]

Great posts, and, to be clear, it's entirely plausible that it happened. The allegations are horrifying. 
 
Yes, the devil is in the details, but I read every one of those alleged facts as thin. Do you really think it would take two years to bring that complaint? Hard to see. 

 
Who knows?  It's possible Rose's attorney kept stringing out pointless negotiations to try to wear the plaintiff down.  We know there were four attorneys.  Let's say the Plaintiff bobbles between a couple of attorneys who don't do much, or who don't like the case after they develop parts of it.  That's 6 months, easy.  Let's say Attorney 3 develops the case but is more of a negotiator/settler than a trial attorney.   Say 6 months of solid development, followed by 6 months of pointless negotiation.   Attorney 4 gets hired to try the case and/or take a harder line.  Couple of months to review everything and tie up loose ends, couple of months to negotiate, couple of months to file.   It can totally happen.  Especially if one of the attorney switches was because an attorney did nothing on the case, hoping it would settle.  
 
We're all just guessing though - what actually happened could land anywhere on a pretty broad spectrum.  

 

[Was (Not Wasdin)]

That complaint is poorly drafted.
 
Paragraphs 30 through 39 detail the events of August 26-27, 2013, where Rose and his friends invited Jane and her friend to a Beverly Hills home for dinner (August 26) and, later on, Rose and his friends drove to Jane's house early in the morning of August 27, 2013 (because they knew she had been drugged).  
 
However, in Paragraph 44, it says that Jane's roommate returned home "in the early hours of August 29, 2013", had an interaction with Rose or one of Rose's friends ("the bathroom's over there") and then went to sleep.  Paragraph 45 says "when Jane woke up the next day", which would probably mean August 29 given the preceding paragraph.   In paragraph 48, it says that Jane woke up late on August 29, 2013, because the drug she had been given knocked her out and made her oversleep.
 
I'm not trolling, but is there a suggestion that they had their way with her for almost 48 hours?  Because that is what a close reading of the complaint suggests.  If not, that is some terrible drafting by the attorney, on something that should be locked down before they even start drafting-the dates on which the events occurred.  He has done a horrible job getting from A to B to C.  
 
There are a lot of other nits in the complaint as well-Paragraph 15 is unclear at best, inaccurate at worst-Rose didnt get hurt until the 2012 playoffs, and missed the 2012-2013 season, not the 2011-2012 season; and paragraph 23 has Rose inviting Jane out to dinner "after a game he had played in ended" during May of 2013, when he wasnt playing due to the injury.  
 
 
These mistakes don't mean that the events Jane alleges didn't happen.  But in a case like this, the lawyer isnt doing his client any favors when he files something that reads like it was slapped together at the last minute.  I note that it was filed on August 26, 2015, when the events are alleged to have taken place on August 27, 2013-does anyone know if there is a statute of limitations issue here?

 

[Alcohol&Overcalls]

 
If any of these "facts" were evidence of a crime they would have been in the complaint. 

 
Strongly disagree - I don't know CA's pleading standard specifically, so I can't comment on the merits, but generally there's a VERY strong incentive for the plaintiff to meet only the minimum pleading standards, particularly in a case whose thematic and theoretical bases will likely morph or change significantly during discovery (as this one likely will). Anything in the complaint is gospel, and there's no reason to tie yourself to something beyond what is needed. Nobody is going to attach an affidavit from the roommate, or even tie themselves to the roommate testifying beyond the bare minimum needed to clear the CA-equivalent 12(b)(6) standard, for example. 
 

Yes, the devil is in the details, but I read every one of those alleged facts as thin. Do you really think it would take two years to bring that complaint? Hard to see. 

 
Plaintiffs' attorneys, for better or worse (I generally argue for worse), love to push the statute of limitations before filing - there are a variety of strategic reasons for this, most broadly to allow full development of the resultant injuries before filing. A cursory search shows CA allows 2 years for battery causing injury - it's the furthest thing from surprising, then, that the plaintiff would wait almost the full allotted SOL before filing. It's practically industry standard, and nothing worth reading into. 

 

[Leather]

All complaints have to do is present sufficient facts, if taken as true, that would amount to a cause of action. They don't need to make the plaintiff's entire case or be works of art.

 

[Myt1]

All complaints have to do is present sufficient facts, if taken as true, that would amount to a cause of action. They don't need to make the plaintiff's entire case or be works of art.

Agreed.  I think the complaint states a claim and wouldn't be dismissed before an answer in the jurisdictions I practice in.  That said, it's strong in some places, weak in others.  Technically weak, but with a compelling, almost dread-building narrative.
 
Kooz, what's the pleading standard where you practice, and why doesn't this complaint meet it?

 

[Rovin Romine]

That complaint is poorly drafted.
(snip)

 
I don't know, what you're pointing out seems like a couple of typos re: the dates, transposing the 29th for the 27th.   If so, that's something that should be amendable in any jurisdiction.  Ultimately it does not mean much; there's no real hay to make from it in front of a jury.   Procedurally, the defense could agree to an amendment or waste the court's time by opposing/dragging the issue out.  (And they get to bill Rose for it, if they take the time wasting route, but at the cost of sending the "hey, we're fundamentally obstructionist" signal to the judge, who will remember that during the inevitable discovery wrangling.)
 
***
Sloppiness aside, I thought it was pretty compelling overall, telling the story in remarkable detail.  It may not be the way I'd do it (in a strategic sense), but every complaint should be tailored to the particulars of its case.  If it was drafted to make Rose take a huge credibility/PR hit when it was filed, I think it did the job and then some.  This may be the hammer that fell in consequence of any negotiations failing. 

 

[ifmanis5]

Well, this is a turn of events: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-lapd-employee-dead-whittier-20161012-snap-story.html

LAPD detective investigating Derrick Rose case found dead of gunshot wound in Whittier

 

[DJnVa]

Self-inflicted apparently.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

Self-inflicted apparently.

That's what Hillary's camp said too.

 

[DJnVa]

Well, rumor is the kill shot came from long range, so Rose didn't do it.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

Well, rumor is the kill shot came from long range, so Rose didn't do it.

Beautiful!!!

 

[cardiacs]

Well, rumor is the kill shot came from long range, so Rose didn't do it.

amazing, thank you for that!

 

[Valek123]

Well, rumor is the kill shot came from long range, so Rose didn't do it.

Bravo, might have a keyboard issue in the future from that.

 

[BannedbyNYYFans.com]

A shadowy figure was seen limping away from the crime scene with an apparent ACL injury.

 

[pokey_reese]

Jury declares Rose not liable: http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/17834977/derrick-rose-new-york-knicks-found-not-liable-sexual-assault-civil-trial

 

[NoXInNixon]

All of the jurors took pictures with Rose after the verdict was read. Regardless of the merits of the suit, that just isn't a good look.

 

[rmaher]

A woman who reports a false rape is likely suffering from mental problems, and shouldn't be looked upon with scorn -- but with pity.

A woman who reports a false rape should most definitely be looked upon with scorn. They often use their "mental problem" as a way to get pity and distract from their (intentional) abusive behavior. Often, women who do such things are considered to be "personality disordered" individuals. Which means they are liars, manipulators, and psychologically and emotionally abusive to the men who try to love them. This includes false rape accusations and other forms of "playing the victim" in general; trying to cast a man as a villain when he has not done anything wrong, and when she is the actual abuser. Women who psychologically and emotionally abuse men are much more common than you may realize. It is serious business. It ruins lives.

 

[Rovin Romine]

A woman who reports a false rape should most definitely be looked upon with scorn. They often use their "mental problem" as a way to get pity and distract from their (intentional) abusive behavior. Often, women who do such things are considered to be "personality disordered" individuals. Which means they are liars, manipulators, and psychologically and emotionally abusive to the men who try to love them. This includes false rape accusations and other forms of "playing the victim" in general; trying to cast a man as a villain when he has not done anything wrong, and when she is the actual abuser. Women who psychologically and emotionally abuse men are much more common than you may realize. It is serious business. It ruins lives.

Fucked up individuals come in all genders. A small percentage of them are basically broken/irredeemable, but most people can grow and change for the better, or, failing that, alter their lives in such a way as to avoid their weak spots. Likewise, "intentionality" in bad behavior is a truly mixed bag, ranging from coldly chosen behaviors to people who lack self-awareness and/or can't help doing the things they do. Most of us fall somewhere in the middle.

I realize you were responding to a blanket assertion with a blanket assertion, and, while disapproval in some form is often warranted, depending on the circumstances, "scorn" really does not do much to fix things.

 

[reggiecleveland]

Last night 20/20 did a thing on the Menendez Brothers, a reporter that covered the trial said if they were the Menendez sisters they would probably have gotten off.

 

[TheYaz67]

I guess Rose went AWOL earlier this week, without telling the team exactly why, missed a game and has been fined by the team?

 

[DJnVa]

There's discussion in the "game thread" thread...

It was last night. He didn't show up for the game.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

Derrick Rose is a leader and has a great influence in this league..........

According to the police report obtained by TMZ Sports, the 34-year-old ex-Boston Celtics player entered the first home early in the morning and went to the master bedroom where he encountered a 56-year-old woman lying in bed.

Greene then left without further incident and went to a 2nd home across the street ... where he allegedly went to the bedroom and saw a 40-year-old woman sleeping in bed.

Greene allegedly kissed the sleeping woman on the neck and "rubbed her butt."

The woman woke up and started yelling ... Greene allegedly booked it and went to his girlfriend's house (which is in the same neighborhood).

http://www.tmz.com/2017/01/10/orien-greene-arrested/

 

[Caspir]

What does Orien Greene committing B&E and battery against strangers and being charged criminally have to do with Derrick Rose being found not liable in a civil suit about a gang rape of a known acquaintance that never led to criminal charges? Was there a cute joke you were trying to make that I missed? Because far as I can tell, Derrick Rose and Orien Greene have two things in common. One is that they have both been NBA players, and the other is that they're both black. I feel like your ellipses needs further explanation.

 

[mt8thsw9th]

I feel like your ellipses needs further explanation.

That's not an ellipsis, that's just a metric fuckton of periods strewn together. They must have been on sale.

 

[kenneycb]

What does Orien Greene committing B&E and battery against strangers and being charged criminally have to do with Derrick Rose being found not liable in a civil suit about a gang rape of a known acquaintance that never led to criminal charges? Was there a cute joke you were trying to make that I missed? Because far as I can tell, Derrick Rose and Orien Greene have two things in common. One is that they have both been NBA players, and the other is that they're both black. I feel like your ellipses needs further explanation.

Or because both have had very inappropriate touchings/dealings/interactions/however you want to characterize it with females. But hey, I love it when people here just casually jump to the racism angle.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

Or because both have had very inappropriate touchings/dealings/interactions/however you want to characterize it with females. But hey, I love it when people here just casually jump to the racism angle.

So doesn't Johnny Depp. Does he have a great influence in the league? The two have nothing to do together. I don't even think he was implying racism, he was implying stupid.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

Was there a cute joke you were trying to make that I missed?

Yes.

Because far as I can tell, Derrick Rose and Orien Greene have two things in common. One is that they have both been NBA players, and the other is that they're both black. I feel like your ellipses needs further explanation.

Clearly you can't tell very far. What kenneycb said.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

The two have nothing to do together.

One was accused of drugging and raping a woman. The other was arrested for breaking news into homes and inappropriately touching women. They both have NBA ties. They both have been arrested for speeding in excess of 100 mph. What don't they have in common?

 

[Cesar Crespo]

One was accused of drugging and raping a woman. The other was arrested for breaking news into homes and inappropriately touching women. They both have NBA ties. They both have been arrested for speeding in excess of 100 mph. What don't they have in common?

Having any influence on each other.

 

[mauf]

Or because both have had very inappropriate touchings/dealings/interactions/however you want to characterize it with females. But hey, I love it when people here just casually jump to the racism angle.

I think people are also reacting to the way you assume that Rose's dealings were inappropriate, when he had his day in court and a jury found there was at least a 50% chance that it didn't happen. The allegations against Rose weren't as clearly disproven as the allegations in the Duke lacrosse or UVA/Rolling Stone cases, but it's curious how some people (not just you) aren't even willing to entertain the possibility that Rose was falsely accused. If it's not because of his race, why is it?

 

[kenneycb]

A) Nobody has reacted to my characterization in the manner you have until you randomly decided to quote it.

B) My quoted post was more of an interpretation of HRB's post, which I viewed as a post in jest, at least the connecting of Green to Rose.

C) You may want to actually read my comments earlier in the thread before you start telling me what my opinion is. I admittedly haven't followed this case so I couldn't really speak to whether or not Rose did anything. More of a lazy posting job by me but your above characterization of my opinion is bullshit.

D) Many athletes are scumbags, so I'm not sure why race is the first angle you go to. Scumbag athletes isn't exactly a new phenomenon, especially in a city that currently fetes arguably the scummiest high-profile athlete in all of pro sports. Probably doesn't make it right but can lead to some inherent biases based on past experiences.

 

[jon abbey]

I'm going to lock this thread in the near future, I don't want to cut you guys off but this case has been closed for months and I don't think it makes sense to bump the thread with different Rose news or similar incidents from other people.

 

[jon abbey]

Locking this thread, but adding a thought from HRB, which is that we should have a general thread here for non-game NBA news like the above Greene story that doesn't merit its own thread. So the next time something like that comes up, please start a general thread, thanks!!