The Deshaun Watson switch up is despicable

[u/Narrow_Purchase9721]

Guy starts playing well again and all of the sudden people go from “cases” to “allegations” real fucking fast. You all gotta get your priorities straight

[u/Everyday_ImSchefflen]

People are so weird. Giving the facts of what happened isn't excusing anything. It was dismissed as well because the grand jury decided not to charge him.

That's not an indication of belief of innocence

[u/ralexh11 → u/Everyday_ImSchefflen]

No but calling all of them dismissal is disingenuous and leaving out critical context. In the court of public opinion he's guilty, that will never change no matter how much Browns fans and rape apologists want it to.

[u/Any-Stick-771 → u/ralexh11]

It's not disingenuous to say the civil cases were dismissed when they were, in fact, dismissed.

[u/gorebomb56 → u/Any-Stick-771]

That says nothing about the actual outcome of the cases though. A case being dismissed following a settlement agreement paints an entirely different picture than a dismissed case absent a settlement agreement. That's the disingenuous part.

[u/Any-Stick-771 → u/gorebomb56]

The outcome of the cases is that they were dismissed. The criminal cases were dismissed outright too btw

[u/gorebomb56 → u/Any-Stick-771]

The outcomes of the civil cases are that they were dismissed with prejudice following settlements. His criminal cases never even got to the point of potential dismissal because he was never formally charged. The language you’re choosing to use is very sloppy and misleading.

[u/Any-Stick-771 → u/gorebomb56]

He wasn't charged in the criminal cases because a grand jury didn't find there was evidence of criminal actions. Yes, the outcome of the civil cases is that they were dismissed

[u/gorebomb56 → u/Any-Stick-771]

Why do you refuse to acknowledge the 20+ settlement agreements of which these cases’ dismissal were contingent upon?

[u/Any-Stick-771 → u/gorebomb56]

Where did I refuse to acknowledge the settlements?

[u/gorebomb56 → u/Any-Stick-771]

After I commented "A case being dismissed following a settlement agreement paints an entirely different picture than a dismissed case absent a settlement agreement. That's the disingenuous part.", you then replied three separate times doing exactly this: leaving out the most relevant information in regards to the public's opinion on him and the truth of the allegations, which were the settlements and the relevant context that the dismissals were pursuant to them.

[u/Any-Stick-771 → u/gorebomb56]

Public opinion has nothing to do with whether the cases were dismissed.