Avery Bradley accused of sexual assault; denies allegations

[KGs Knee]

And I'm not saying I know what anyone was thinking or did. I'm just saying that neither side should be presumed of any motive until proven so.

[nickagneta]

Correction: the accused doesn’t want us to see the evidence.

No. The accuser doesn't want us to see the evidence. Or at least the evidence isn't so important to her that she can't be paid to not show it to us. Easier to take the money than be cross examined. I guess you could say the accuser is not invested in showing us the evidence. Or rather she is invested in not showing us the evidence.

He's invested. He gave her money to not show the evidence. He's presumed innocent, sure. But what innocent man buys someone's silence? He didn't have to pay her, but whatever she claimed or accused him of was worth it for him to pay to keep from the public.

I can easily see an innocent man foolishly thinking money could actually make it go away, and see value in doing this because he knows in some people's minds even if he is innocent he'll always be viewed as guilty anyway. It happens.

That indicates a level of naïveté on his part that I can't really buy into.

This is the NBA, married players and players with significant others cheat rather regularly. I feel pretty comfortable saying I don't believe this is a first time situation for him. Also, we've seen higher profile athletes fight to proclaim their innocence whether it be in criminal court or civil court - we've seen it with Kobe and more recently with Derrick Rose. On the contrary, both of the accusers in those cases had their entire sexual histories scrutinized and questioned which may be why the accuser in this case opted not pursue a criminal case.

Yes, but you're not a man, and really couldn't understand a man's perspective. But it's absolutely plausible Avery did think exactly that.

Using you're Kobe example, many people still think Kobe assaulted that woman, yet he was acquitted.

Seems like a pretty sexist thing to say. Can't see why a woman can't understand a man's perspective regarding this subject.

[Roy H.]

Using you're Kobe example, many people still think Kobe assaulted that woman, yet he was acquitted.

Was he? I didn’t think so. Rather, I think charges were dropped after the accuser declined to cooperate in return for a monetary settlement and a stipulation of probable cause on Kobe’s part. But, I could be misremembering.

[Roy H.]

Correction: the accused doesn’t want us to see the evidence.

No. The accuser doesn't want us to see the evidence. Or at least the evidence isn't so important to her that she can't be paid to not show it to us. Easier to take the money than be cross examined. I guess you could say the accuser is not invested in showing us the evidence. Or rather she is invested in not showing us the evidence.

He's invested. He gave her money to not show the evidence. He's presumed innocent, sure. But what innocent man buys someone's silence? He didn't have to pay her, but whatever she claimed or accused him of was worth it for him to pay to keep from the public.

I can easily see an innocent man foolishly thinking money could actually make it go away, and see value in doing this because he knows in some people's minds even if he is innocent he'll always be viewed as guilty anyway. It happens.

That indicates a level of naïveté on his part that I can't really buy into.

This is the NBA, married players and players with significant others cheat rather regularly. I feel pretty comfortable saying I don't believe this is a first time situation for him. Also, we've seen higher profile athletes fight to proclaim their innocence whether it be in criminal court or civil court - we've seen it with Kobe and more recently with Derrick Rose. On the contrary, both of the accusers in those cases had their entire sexual histories scrutinized and questioned which may be why the accuser in this case opted not pursue a criminal case.

Yes, but you're not a man, and really couldn't understand a man's perspective. But it's absolutely plausible Avery did think exactly that.

Using you're Kobe example, many people still think Kobe assaulted that woman, yet he was acquitted.

Seems like a pretty sexist thing to say. Can't see why a woman can't understand a man's perspective regarding this subject.

I’ve gotta say, I didn’t realize that RJ87 wasn’t male, and nothing about RJ’s perspective seemed unusual from my own male perspective.

[KGs Knee]

Correction: the accused doesn’t want us to see the evidence.

No. The accuser doesn't want us to see the evidence. Or at least the evidence isn't so important to her that she can't be paid to not show it to us. Easier to take the money than be cross examined. I guess you could say the accuser is not invested in showing us the evidence. Or rather she is invested in not showing us the evidence.

He's invested. He gave her money to not show the evidence. He's presumed innocent, sure. But what innocent man buys someone's silence? He didn't have to pay her, but whatever she claimed or accused him of was worth it for him to pay to keep from the public.

I can easily see an innocent man foolishly thinking money could actually make it go away, and see value in doing this because he knows in some people's minds even if he is innocent he'll always be viewed as guilty anyway. It happens.

That indicates a level of naïveté on his part that I can't really buy into.

This is the NBA, married players and players with significant others cheat rather regularly. I feel pretty comfortable saying I don't believe this is a first time situation for him. Also, we've seen higher profile athletes fight to proclaim their innocence whether it be in criminal court or civil court - we've seen it with Kobe and more recently with Derrick Rose. On the contrary, both of the accusers in those cases had their entire sexual histories scrutinized and questioned which may be why the accuser in this case opted not pursue a criminal case.

Yes, but you're not a man, and really couldn't understand a man's perspective. But it's absolutely plausible Avery did think exactly that.

Using you're Kobe example, many people still think Kobe assaulted that woman, yet he was acquitted.

Seems like a pretty sexist thing to say. Can't see why a woman can't understand a man's perspective regarding this subject.

It's not sexist at all.   I don't claim to understand a woman's perspective.

[rondohondo]

Since I saw someone else mention the Salem witch trials.

Just a fun fact

Turns out it might have had a lot to do with ergot poisoning that has an lsd type effect apparently...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergotism

Trump derangement syndrome and academia is the new ergot



Also if Avery had an affair, it doesn't mean he can't be a man of strong character. Every human has flaws....

[nickagneta]

Correction: the accused doesn’t want us to see the evidence.

No. The accuser doesn't want us to see the evidence. Or at least the evidence isn't so important to her that she can't be paid to not show it to us. Easier to take the money than be cross examined. I guess you could say the accuser is not invested in showing us the evidence. Or rather she is invested in not showing us the evidence.

He's invested. He gave her money to not show the evidence. He's presumed innocent, sure. But what innocent man buys someone's silence? He didn't have to pay her, but whatever she claimed or accused him of was worth it for him to pay to keep from the public.

I can easily see an innocent man foolishly thinking money could actually make it go away, and see value in doing this because he knows in some people's minds even if he is innocent he'll always be viewed as guilty anyway. It happens.

That indicates a level of naïveté on his part that I can't really buy into.

This is the NBA, married players and players with significant others cheat rather regularly. I feel pretty comfortable saying I don't believe this is a first time situation for him. Also, we've seen higher profile athletes fight to proclaim their innocence whether it be in criminal court or civil court - we've seen it with Kobe and more recently with Derrick Rose. On the contrary, both of the accusers in those cases had their entire sexual histories scrutinized and questioned which may be why the accuser in this case opted not pursue a criminal case.

Yes, but you're not a man, and really couldn't understand a man's perspective. But it's absolutely plausible Avery did think exactly that.

Using you're Kobe example, many people still think Kobe assaulted that woman, yet he was acquitted.

Seems like a pretty sexist thing to say. Can't see why a woman can't understand a man's perspective regarding this subject.

It's not sexist at all.   I don't claim to understand a woman's perspective.

With all due respect my friend, yeah, it is sexist. Just because you can't understand a woman's perspective, generalizing that all women can't understand a male's perspective is sexist.

[KGs Knee]

Using you're Kobe example, many people still think Kobe assaulted that woman, yet he was acquitted.

Was he? I didn’t think so. Rather, I think charges were dropped after the accuser declined to cooperate in return for a monetary settlement and a stipulation of probable cause on Kobe’s part. But, I could be misremembering.

Criminal charges were dropped when the accuser refused to testify. There was then a civil trial which eventually was settled out of court.

At least that is what Wikipedia says.

[Big333223]

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.

[Roy H.]

Correction: the accused doesn’t want us to see the evidence.

No. The accuser doesn't want us to see the evidence. Or at least the evidence isn't so important to her that she can't be paid to not show it to us. Easier to take the money than be cross examined. I guess you could say the accuser is not invested in showing us the evidence. Or rather she is invested in not showing us the evidence.

He's invested. He gave her money to not show the evidence. He's presumed innocent, sure. But what innocent man buys someone's silence? He didn't have to pay her, but whatever she claimed or accused him of was worth it for him to pay to keep from the public.

I can easily see an innocent man foolishly thinking money could actually make it go away, and see value in doing this because he knows in some people's minds even if he is innocent he'll always be viewed as guilty anyway. It happens.

That indicates a level of naïveté on his part that I can't really buy into.

This is the NBA, married players and players with significant others cheat rather regularly. I feel pretty comfortable saying I don't believe this is a first time situation for him. Also, we've seen higher profile athletes fight to proclaim their innocence whether it be in criminal court or civil court - we've seen it with Kobe and more recently with Derrick Rose. On the contrary, both of the accusers in those cases had their entire sexual histories scrutinized and questioned which may be why the accuser in this case opted not pursue a criminal case.

Yes, but you're not a man, and really couldn't understand a man's perspective. But it's absolutely plausible Avery did think exactly that.

Using you're Kobe example, many people still think Kobe assaulted that woman, yet he was acquitted.

Seems like a pretty sexist thing to say. Can't see why a woman can't understand a man's perspective regarding this subject.

It's not sexist at all.   I don't claim to understand a woman's perspective.

With all due respect my friend, yeah, it is sexist. Just because you can't understand a woman's perspective, generalizing that all women can't understand a male's perspective is sexist.

I’m not even sure there’s a universal “man’s perspective” or “woman’s perspective”.

I’m not black, rich, or a professional athlete.  I’d like to think I can at least understand an outside perspective, though.

[Big333223]

Correction: the accused doesn’t want us to see the evidence.

No. The accuser doesn't want us to see the evidence. Or at least the evidence isn't so important to her that she can't be paid to not show it to us. Easier to take the money than be cross examined. I guess you could say the accuser is not invested in showing us the evidence. Or rather she is invested in not showing us the evidence.

He's invested. He gave her money to not show the evidence. He's presumed innocent, sure. But what innocent man buys someone's silence? He didn't have to pay her, but whatever she claimed or accused him of was worth it for him to pay to keep from the public.

I can easily see an innocent man foolishly thinking money could actually make it go away, and see value in doing this because he knows in some people's minds even if he is innocent he'll always be viewed as guilty anyway. It happens.

That indicates a level of naïveté on his part that I can't really buy into.

This is the NBA, married players and players with significant others cheat rather regularly. I feel pretty comfortable saying I don't believe this is a first time situation for him. Also, we've seen higher profile athletes fight to proclaim their innocence whether it be in criminal court or civil court - we've seen it with Kobe and more recently with Derrick Rose. On the contrary, both of the accusers in those cases had their entire sexual histories scrutinized and questioned which may be why the accuser in this case opted not pursue a criminal case.

Yes, but you're not a man, and really couldn't understand a man's perspective. But it's absolutely plausible Avery did think exactly that.

Using you're Kobe example, many people still think Kobe assaulted that woman, yet he was acquitted.

Seems like a pretty sexist thing to say. Can't see why a woman can't understand a man's perspective regarding this subject.

It's not sexist at all.   I don't claim to understand a woman's perspective.

If you find it impossible to understand another human being's perspective on something just because of their gender... yeah, that's sexist.

[nickagneta]

Correction: the accused doesn’t want us to see the evidence.

No. The accuser doesn't want us to see the evidence. Or at least the evidence isn't so important to her that she can't be paid to not show it to us. Easier to take the money than be cross examined. I guess you could say the accuser is not invested in showing us the evidence. Or rather she is invested in not showing us the evidence.

He's invested. He gave her money to not show the evidence. He's presumed innocent, sure. But what innocent man buys someone's silence? He didn't have to pay her, but whatever she claimed or accused him of was worth it for him to pay to keep from the public.

I can easily see an innocent man foolishly thinking money could actually make it go away, and see value in doing this because he knows in some people's minds even if he is innocent he'll always be viewed as guilty anyway. It happens.

That indicates a level of naïveté on his part that I can't really buy into.

This is the NBA, married players and players with significant others cheat rather regularly. I feel pretty comfortable saying I don't believe this is a first time situation for him. Also, we've seen higher profile athletes fight to proclaim their innocence whether it be in criminal court or civil court - we've seen it with Kobe and more recently with Derrick Rose. On the contrary, both of the accusers in those cases had their entire sexual histories scrutinized and questioned which may be why the accuser in this case opted not pursue a criminal case.

Yes, but you're not a man, and really couldn't understand a man's perspective. But it's absolutely plausible Avery did think exactly that.

Using you're Kobe example, many people still think Kobe assaulted that woman, yet he was acquitted.

Seems like a pretty sexist thing to say. Can't see why a woman can't understand a man's perspective regarding this subject.

It's not sexist at all.   I don't claim to understand a woman's perspective.

With all due respect my friend, yeah, it is sexist. Just because you can't understand a woman's perspective, generalizing that all women can't understand a male's perspective is sexist.

I’m not even sure there’s a universal “man’s perspective” or “woman’s perspective”.

I’m not black, rich, or a professional athlete.  I’d like to think I can at least understand an outside perspective, though.

Agree completely. Any person can understand another person's perspective

[KGs Knee]

Correction: the accused doesn’t want us to see the evidence.

No. The accuser doesn't want us to see the evidence. Or at least the evidence isn't so important to her that she can't be paid to not show it to us. Easier to take the money than be cross examined. I guess you could say the accuser is not invested in showing us the evidence. Or rather she is invested in not showing us the evidence.

He's invested. He gave her money to not show the evidence. He's presumed innocent, sure. But what innocent man buys someone's silence? He didn't have to pay her, but whatever she claimed or accused him of was worth it for him to pay to keep from the public.

I can easily see an innocent man foolishly thinking money could actually make it go away, and see value in doing this because he knows in some people's minds even if he is innocent he'll always be viewed as guilty anyway. It happens.

That indicates a level of naïveté on his part that I can't really buy into.

This is the NBA, married players and players with significant others cheat rather regularly. I feel pretty comfortable saying I don't believe this is a first time situation for him. Also, we've seen higher profile athletes fight to proclaim their innocence whether it be in criminal court or civil court - we've seen it with Kobe and more recently with Derrick Rose. On the contrary, both of the accusers in those cases had their entire sexual histories scrutinized and questioned which may be why the accuser in this case opted not pursue a criminal case.

Yes, but you're not a man, and really couldn't understand a man's perspective. But it's absolutely plausible Avery did think exactly that.

Using you're Kobe example, many people still think Kobe assaulted that woman, yet he was acquitted.

Seems like a pretty sexist thing to say. Can't see why a woman can't understand a man's perspective regarding this subject.

It's not sexist at all.   I don't claim to understand a woman's perspective.

With all due respect my friend, yeah, it is sexist. Just because you can't understand a woman's perspective, generalizing that all women can't understand a male's perspective is sexist.

I strongly, but respectfully disagree.

A man can't understand a woman, a woman can't understand a man, a white can't understand a black, a black can't understand a white, and so on and so on.

The best we can do is listen, be mindful, respectful, and acknowledge the other's perspective.  But you can't truly understand what it is like to be something you are not.

[Big333223]

Correction: the accused doesn’t want us to see the evidence.

No. The accuser doesn't want us to see the evidence. Or at least the evidence isn't so important to her that she can't be paid to not show it to us. Easier to take the money than be cross examined. I guess you could say the accuser is not invested in showing us the evidence. Or rather she is invested in not showing us the evidence.

He's invested. He gave her money to not show the evidence. He's presumed innocent, sure. But what innocent man buys someone's silence? He didn't have to pay her, but whatever she claimed or accused him of was worth it for him to pay to keep from the public.

I can easily see an innocent man foolishly thinking money could actually make it go away, and see value in doing this because he knows in some people's minds even if he is innocent he'll always be viewed as guilty anyway. It happens.

That indicates a level of naïveté on his part that I can't really buy into.

This is the NBA, married players and players with significant others cheat rather regularly. I feel pretty comfortable saying I don't believe this is a first time situation for him. Also, we've seen higher profile athletes fight to proclaim their innocence whether it be in criminal court or civil court - we've seen it with Kobe and more recently with Derrick Rose. On the contrary, both of the accusers in those cases had their entire sexual histories scrutinized and questioned which may be why the accuser in this case opted not pursue a criminal case.

Yes, but you're not a man, and really couldn't understand a man's perspective. But it's absolutely plausible Avery did think exactly that.

Using you're Kobe example, many people still think Kobe assaulted that woman, yet he was acquitted.

Seems like a pretty sexist thing to say. Can't see why a woman can't understand a man's perspective regarding this subject.

It's not sexist at all.   I don't claim to understand a woman's perspective.

With all due respect my friend, yeah, it is sexist. Just because you can't understand a woman's perspective, generalizing that all women can't understand a male's perspective is sexist.

I strongly, but respectfully disagree.

A man can't understand a woman, a woman can't understand a man, a white can't understand a black, a black can't understand a white, and so on and so on.

The best we can do is listen, be mindful, respectful, and acknowledge the other's perspective.  But you can't truly understand what it is like to be something you are not.

By this reasoning, no person can ever understand another person's perspective because we all lead varied lives that have given us different experiences.

[KGs Knee]

Correction: the accused doesn’t want us to see the evidence.

No. The accuser doesn't want us to see the evidence. Or at least the evidence isn't so important to her that she can't be paid to not show it to us. Easier to take the money than be cross examined. I guess you could say the accuser is not invested in showing us the evidence. Or rather she is invested in not showing us the evidence.

He's invested. He gave her money to not show the evidence. He's presumed innocent, sure. But what innocent man buys someone's silence? He didn't have to pay her, but whatever she claimed or accused him of was worth it for him to pay to keep from the public.

I can easily see an innocent man foolishly thinking money could actually make it go away, and see value in doing this because he knows in some people's minds even if he is innocent he'll always be viewed as guilty anyway. It happens.

That indicates a level of naïveté on his part that I can't really buy into.

This is the NBA, married players and players with significant others cheat rather regularly. I feel pretty comfortable saying I don't believe this is a first time situation for him. Also, we've seen higher profile athletes fight to proclaim their innocence whether it be in criminal court or civil court - we've seen it with Kobe and more recently with Derrick Rose. On the contrary, both of the accusers in those cases had their entire sexual histories scrutinized and questioned which may be why the accuser in this case opted not pursue a criminal case.

Yes, but you're not a man, and really couldn't understand a man's perspective. But it's absolutely plausible Avery did think exactly that.

Using you're Kobe example, many people still think Kobe assaulted that woman, yet he was acquitted.

Seems like a pretty sexist thing to say. Can't see why a woman can't understand a man's perspective regarding this subject.

It's not sexist at all.   I don't claim to understand a woman's perspective.

With all due respect my friend, yeah, it is sexist. Just because you can't understand a woman's perspective, generalizing that all women can't understand a male's perspective is sexist.

I strongly, but respectfully disagree.

A man can't understand a woman, a woman can't understand a man, a white can't understand a black, a black can't understand a white, and so on and so on.

The best we can do is listen, be mindful, respectful, and acknowledge the other's perspective.  But you can't truly understand what it is like to be something you are not.

By this reasoning, no person can ever understand another person's perspective because we all lead varied lives that have given us different experiences.

Exactly