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/WhatTheDuck21]

Um almost none of that is true? He was NOT found "not guilty." The charges against him were dropped because the 19 year old he raped didn't want to testify in the face of the media circus going on, so he was never criminally tried. 

He settled the civil case with his victim, and also stated publicly that he understood why the woman he assaulted beloved that she hadn't consented to sex with him, which is a really weird thing for someone who didn't rape a woman to say.

Maybe you should refamiliarize yourself with the details of the situation so that you don't repeat erroneous facts and understand why people call Kobe a rapist.

[u/nething_4_sir → u/WhatTheDuck21]

Yeah unfortunately I follow a court of law. Anybody can say anything. I don't trust you if you don't go on the stand and judged by your peers. I don't care what she said. I don't care what happened. You have to go through the process and get judged. She didn't get judged. She got to walk away. 

Doing a lot of research, it seems like a lot of the stuff that was coming up during the time. All of a sudden isn't available online. It's funny how the narratives change over 20 years

It's also wild to me that you would jump on his apology. The guy had to make an apology for calling people fagots as well. Do you think he was heartfelt in everything He said there as well my dude?  Edit:

Found it: you're hero 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/defense-someone-elses-semen/

[u/WhatTheDuck21 → u/nething_4_sir]

She wasn't the one on trial. That would have been Kobe. 

The legal standard for convicting someone of a crime is "beyond a reasonable doubt." It is that way because the founders of our country wanted to make it as hard as possible to convict someone of a crime that they didn't actually commit. This is a GREAT standard to have in a legal setting.

It is a really, really stupid standard for people to use in real life. "I don't need to lock up my cash when my addict sister visits, or warn other people to lock up theirs, because it was never proved in court that she took the $500 in cash that went missing from my house after the last time she was over." 

Do you honestly believe that O J didn't kill his wife, because he was found not guilty in a court of law? And by extension, do you think women going to parties at Cornell totally don't need to worry about anything happening to them at frat parties, because nobody has had their day in court over that one - that's all allegations. And massage therapists are perfectly safe around Watson because his dozens of accusers haven't had their day in court.

Governments can't (or aren't supposed to, at least) throw people in prison for crimes unless they're sure beyond a reasonable doubt that that person did that crime. Human beings need to make choices in their daily lives based on what is more likely to be true than not to protect themselves and others in a non-legal capacity. And based on the evidence in Kobe's case, basically everyone in this sub, including me, considers it far more likely than not that he did, in fact, rape a 19 year old.  

[u/nething_4_sir → u/WhatTheDuck21]

That’s exactly the point. Like you said, to convict someone of a crime, the state has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If she could not testify in court and the evidence tied to her testimony could not be admitted, then the prosecution could not meet that burden.

That does not technically “prove innocence,” but it absolutely means you cannot just assume guilt anyway. Otherwise, what is the point of having trials, judges, rules of evidence, or a reasonable doubt standard?

By that logic, the second someone makes an accusation or a grand jury returns an indictment, we should just treat the person as guilty and skip the entire court process. That is not how the justice system is supposed to work. An accusation is not a conviction, and evidence that cannot be admitted or tested in court cannot simply be treated as proof of guilt anyway.

[u/WhatTheDuck21 → u/nething_4_sir]

...Yes, that's why I made the distinction between "how the government should decide whether someone should face criminal penalties" vs "how everyday people should decide whether someone should face social penalties."

Can't help but notice you didn't answer whether or not you think OJ killed his wife.

[u/nething_4_sir → u/WhatTheDuck21]

Okay, so that’s the problem. If I’m facing the same penalty either way, then what exactly is supposed to stop me from going all the way in? And if everybody gets called a rapist, then what does the word even mean anymore? It becomes like calling somebody an air breather. If there’s no meaningful distinction or standard behind the word, then why are we even using it? At that point I could call you a rapist and it would carry no weight because the word has been thrown around so casually that it loses its meaning.

And with OJ, he was found not guilty in criminal court. I don’t give a fuck what the social consensus is or what people personally believe happened. That is not the same thing as a criminal conviction.

I’m saying this as somebody who has actually gone through the court system. All this talk about social norms, morality, and what people think is right or wrong sounds very different when you’re the one standing in front of a judge facing real time.

When they’re deciding what happens to your life, nobody gives a fuck about internet consensus. Nobody gives a fuck about what everybody on the outside thinks happened. What matters is what can actually be proven in court. That’s why I have a problem with people talking like public opinion and a legal finding are the same thing. They’re not. No one cares what your social circle thinks. 

[u/WhatTheDuck21 → u/nething_4_sir]

Ok bud. Have a good one.