Avery Bradley accused of sexual assault; denies allegations

[Eja117]

This just strikes me as really different than say the Rothlisburger thing. That woman was held behind a locked door with guards and went to the police within 24 hours I thought.

I see this as hush money at absolute worst and hush money isn't sexual assault.

Hush money could be sexual assault. Look at all the Weinstein stuff.

Then go to the police. If you don't go to the police not only was he not convicted, not only was he not charged, not only was he not arrested....I mean did she even file a complaint or anything at all? Just tells me she didn't think he had committed a crime serious enough to pursue at the time.

There are plenty of reasons victims of abuse don't go to the police. Here's a good article about it:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-compassion-chronicles/201711/why-dont-victims-sexual-harassment-come-forward-sooner

which is a huge problem.

Tough one to solve too.

Totally. And claiming that not going to the police is evidence that an accuser didn't think the attacker had committed a crime, as eja has done, is part of that problem.

I'm kinda a "show me" person.  Another way to say is "Trust but verify".   If we started believing every accusation simply because it is an accusation then we could live in Salem in the late 1600s and I think that was probably a terrible time and place to be. A great time for accusers. But not anyone else.

Nowhere did I say that all accusations should be believed.

Claiming that not going to the police is evidence that a victim didn't think a crime occurred is a well-debunked misnomer. By doing so, you are the one making a baseless assumption.

Going to the police is evidence you think a crime was committed. So...not going to the police....is at the very least not evidence that you think a crime was committed and may very well be evidence that you think a crime wasn't committed.

I don't owe the accuser my blind belief without seeing evidence. So if you choose not to show it to me by not going to the police......presumption of innocence goes to Mr. Bradley.

No one is saying you have to blindly believe anything. The problem is you're making assumptions about the accuser's behavior.

Not going to the police isn't evidence of anything. There are plenty of reasons a victim might not go to the police as has already been outlined in this thread. The fact that we don't know what happened is further reason to not jump to the conclusions you are jumping to.

I shouldn't give Bradley presumption of innocence? Technically I should give him the presumption of evidence even if she did go to the police. But she didn't.

I never said you can't presume Bradley's innocence. I said you can't presume the accuser's opinion of the event based on the fact that she didn't go to the police. Not going to the police is not evidence of anything.

But you as the accuser can't be given any presumption of truth if you refused to show it to people.

Again, there are plenty of reasons why someone who goes through something like this would not want to be public about it. Once more:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-compassion-chronicles/201711/why-dont-victims-sexual-harassment-come-forward-sooner

I didn't say there aren't reasons.

You've claimed her not going to the police is evidence she only wants money or that she doesn't really believe he committed a crime. That is not true. There are lots of other potential reasons. Reasons you ignore so you can reach your proffered conclusion about her character.

I haven't said anything about her character. I've stated there's no evidence to me that Avery committed a crime because she didn't want us to see the evidence.
I also don't think I ever said "she only wants money".  Perhaps she also wanted some sort of closure and privacy. But she didn't want to be cross examined. We know that as fact. She wanted no part of a trial.  So I can't convict him for her the way you do.

You are making assumptions about her character when you say things like "That tells me that she basically extorted him for money." There is no evidence that this is the true but you've made the assumption anyway. Meanwhile you're accusing me of convicting Avery when I've never said a word suggesting I know anything about his guilt or innocence.

It is also not a "fact" that she "didn't want to be cross examined." That is is yet another assumption you make based on this debunked idea that not going to the police is evidence of something. It isn't.

You seem to be acting like the things people do aren't actually indicators of choosing or wanting to do that.

That's essentially what happened right?  She decided not to go to the police. She needs to own that. Then her people called him for money right?  Isn't that what happened? I mean he didn't wake up the next morning like "I made a big mistake and feel terrible" right? 

I mean people are talking about Avery's character here and how he is a fraud of a Christian so fine.
Let's give her the same assume the worst about her character treatment we're giving Avery.
Either she is doing something with a married man and a crime wasn't committed and she still wanted to get paid and then the non disclose she agreed to ended up being worth nothing

or

He did commit a crime and she know that, but rather than help all us convict a criminal and get him off the streets she opts to get paid (which she could have anyway) and then non disclose she agreed to ended up not being worth anything.

I think I am justified saying I wouldn't really want to have anything to do with either of these people. You can be best friends with them if you want but I'd rather not. Call me judgmental, but I definitely wouldn't want my brother dating her, and I definitely wouldn't want my sister dating him.

No, I'm acknowledging that the things people do could be indicators of a variety of things.

And no, we don't know that "her people" called Avery to ask for money. It's possible that happened but there are, again, plenty of other possibilities that you are refusing to consider. We just don't know.

Heck. We don't even know if this was a borderline false accusation

[KGs Knee]

I just want to say, I really hope the '#MeToo' era leads to a much bigger, open, and helpful societal discussion between women and men about how they treat each other.

I think there is a lot of listening both men and women need to do.  And I'd hope for a discussion that allows people to state their feelings, thoughts, and perspectives free from pre-judgment and attack.

The one thing I worry about in times like these is often people are more shamed into acknowledging and accepting something, rather than being convinced through logic and reason.

[Eja117]

I just realized today that one of my only Celtics shirts is Avery Bradley and also the only Celts poster on the boy's wall is a poster of Avery and Smart together that we got at one of the only games he's been to.

Well that's just great. Yup. Juuuussssttttt great.