Avery Bradley accused of sexual assault; denies allegations

[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 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.

Not going to respond to this as it will seriously derail this thread taking it off subject. Perhaps it should be separated into its own subject.

[KGs Knee]

That's fine.  I just wanted to state my reasoning.  I feel it's logical and rational.

[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.

Exactly

If you believe that no person can ever understand another's perspective then why are you able to see things from Avery's perspective?

[wayupnorth]

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

I will say, it is extremely common on topics (ranging from abortion to reporting sexual assault) for women to regularly say that men can't understand their perspective.

I highly doubt you would have the same reaction to them making that claim.

[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

If you believe that no person can ever understand another's perspective then why are you able to see things from Avery's perspective?

I'll respond in another thread is someone wants to start one.  Or if you want further clarification you can PM me.

Nick is right, it's probably too big of a discussion and only tangentially related, thus off-topic.

[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.   

[nickagneta]

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.

eja you are completely dismissing victim's syndrome. My ex-wife was domestic violence advocate and only about 1 in 5 victims actually brought charges against their abusers. Sexual assault is not much different. Victims think they deserved what happen or are afraid to come forward because they think people won't believe them or because they don't want the situation to become public and then be labeled as that "person".

This woman could easily have victim's syndrome and decided HER best course of justice was a financial settlement that kept the entire situation private. Not claiming that happened, but its possible so its bedt to kerp an open mind on the subject til more info surfaces.

[Eja117]

Again. It's very simple. Either we go around believing accusations without any evidence because of reasons and studies or we don't go around believing accusations without any evidence.  I choose not to believe accusations without evidence.

That's not to say that I think the accuser isn't telling the truth or her version of it. Just that I refuse to convict someone in some court of opinion because of an accusation with no evidence. Certainly not as it relates to crimes.

[Roy H.]

Again. It's very simple. Either we go around believing accusations without any evidence because of reasons and studies or we don't go around believing accusations without any evidence.  I choose not to believe accusations without evidence.

That's not to say that I think the accuser isn't telling the truth or her version of it. Just that I refuse to convict someone in some court of opinion because of an accusation with no evidence. Certainly not as it relates to crimes.

There’s nothing wrong with that opinion, but it conflicts with your prior words:

That tells me that she basically extorted him for money

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

It’s pretty explicit that you’ve formed an opinion about the accuser and her credibility.

[RJ87]

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.

If I didn't explicitly state it a few pages back, I've got a feeling KG wouldn't have been able to guess so either.

And hey, I'm not judging Avery for cheating. With athletes and their level of travel, it really is part of the lifestyle. Perhaps if Avery was a rookie, I could buy the wide-eyed, "I fell into this" Paul George story, but he's not. Maybe that's why I just don't buy the character defense. As I've also stated previously, my job does allow me to interact with athletes on a relatively frequent basis. I've had "nice guys" in who turn out to be nightmares, and I've had supposed problem athletes turn out to be the kindest, most respectful people I've ever encountered. We don't know these guys. I'm sure there's some demons in their closets.

[PhoSita]

The majority of people around the NBA and outside it that have publically endorsed him as one of the most kind-hearted, gentle people they've ever talked to or spent time with.

More than happy to listen to any proof you have of the contrary.

Do you know those people personally?  What were their motives for saying so?

I think this entire #MeToo thing should have taught us by now not to assume we know much of anything at all about public figures.  We know what they want us to know about them.  Especially in today's atmosphere where anybody with money who spends time in the public eye has multiple people, often on their payroll, to help them mold their image.  Even relatively low profile NBA players.

[GreenEnvy]

The majority of people around the NBA and outside it that have publically endorsed him as one of the most kind-hearted, gentle people they've ever talked to or spent time with.

More than happy to listen to any proof you have of the contrary.

Do you know those people personally?  What were their motives for saying so?

I think this entire #MeToo thing should have taught us by now not to assume we know much of anything at all about public figures.  We know what they want us to know about them.  Especially in today's atmosphere where anybody with money who spends time in the public eye has multiple people, often on their payroll, to help them mold their image.  Even relatively low profile NBA players.

The problem though is that the #MeToo movement involves many celebrities/politicians of which none are overwhelmingly surprising and/or an isolated incident. This one is both.

I hope a woman wouldn’t accuse any man (and vice versa), famous or not, of sexual assault without there being 100% truth behind it. I fear that regret/remorse for engaging sexually with an individual is possibly a reason to accuse him/her of something as serious and heinous as sexual assault.

No, probably nobody on this site knows AB. We don’t even know who the accuser is. But we can hope nobody would ever make a false accusation for any type of financial gain and/or emotional justification.

Terrible story. Don’t know what’s worse, it being true or false.

I don’t see how the NBA doesn’t investigate despite the agreement.

[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.

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

[Roy H.]

The majority of people around the NBA and outside it that have publically endorsed him as one of the most kind-hearted, gentle people they've ever talked to or spent time with.

More than happy to listen to any proof you have of the contrary.

Do you know those people personally?  What were their motives for saying so?

I think this entire #MeToo thing should have taught us by now not to assume we know much of anything at all about public figures.  We know what they want us to know about them.  Especially in today's atmosphere where anybody with money who spends time in the public eye has multiple people, often on their payroll, to help them mold their image.  Even relatively low profile NBA players.

The problem though is that the #MeToo movement involves many celebrities/politicians of which none are overwhelmingly surprising and/or an isolated incident. This one is both.

I hope a woman wouldn’t accuse any man (and vice versa), famous or not, of sexual assault without there being 100% truth behind it. I fear that regret/remorse for engaging sexually with an individual is possibly a reason to accuse him/her of something as serious and heinous as sexual assault.

No, probably nobody on this site knows AB. We don’t even know who the accuser is. But we can hope nobody would ever make a false accusation for any type of financial gain and/or emotional justification.

Terrible story. Don’t know what’s worse, it being true or false.

I don’t see how the NBA doesn’t investigate despite the agreement.

It’s worse if it’s true.

[Eja117]

Again. It's very simple. Either we go around believing accusations without any evidence because of reasons and studies or we don't go around believing accusations without any evidence.  I choose not to believe accusations without evidence.

That's not to say that I think the accuser isn't telling the truth or her version of it. Just that I refuse to convict someone in some court of opinion because of an accusation with no evidence. Certainly not as it relates to crimes.

There’s nothing wrong with that opinion, but it conflicts with your prior words:

That tells me that she basically extorted him for money

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

It’s pretty explicit that you’ve formed an opinion about the accuser and her credibility.

As you have about Avery without any evidence.

I say "she didn't go to the police or show any evidence."

You say "He paid her."

You are absolutely correct we have formed opinions here.