Jump to content

RedRamage

Moderators
  • Content count

    22,259
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

89 Excellent

About RedRamage

  • Rank
    MotownSports Fan
  • Birthday 12/05/1971

Converted

  • Location
    GR, MI

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Enable
  1. Re: Allowed to ask: I don't think it matters where a person lives. I think the laws apply based on where the job is. The Lions said that they employed a company to do the background checks to make sure they were follow federal and state laws. Re: How was it never discovered: My guess here is that it just wasn't an important thing when he was first hired. He was a relatively lowly assistant initially... can't ask about arrests, so it didn't come up when he was first hired. Media didn't look into cause who's going to do background checks on low end coaching staff? By the time he advanced to a DC no one from the media thought to look into it cause the assumption was that everything was checked by then.
  2. RedRamage

    Get Well Soon, Matt Millen

    Thoughts and prayers.
  3. I think that's a great way to view it, both of you. In all honesty I'm probably doing some mental gymnastics to try and make sure I don't find myself siding with Patricia "just because." I want to make sure that I don't just accept his story because, as a Lions fan, I want it to be true. I want to make sure I'm giving the woman the full benefit of the doubt as well... but as you both correctly put it, outside of more evidence, there's nothing more to do.
  4. All joking aside, it comes down to this: We don't know what happened. I'm not going to assume Patricia is guilty. I'm also not going to assume the woman is lying. This does kinda leaves me in a weird Schrödinger's cat situation where I assume neither is wrong yet their stories obviously can't co-exist. But I can't in good faith to myself assume one is innocent until proven guilty but then assume the other must have lied and that's why she backed out of the trial without any evidence.
  5. I'm thinking something like this:
  6. I believe that JBK was saying that the Lions may not have done a background check of Patricia because Quinn felt he knew him well enough.
  7. Again... purely an example situation here, not what I'm saying happened. Remember, ifs and maybes are my realm! tl;dr: I paint a possible situation where the young woman was raped, but for various reasons decides not to pursue the case. Let's say you're a "good girl" from a small(ish) town... at least that's what you show to your parents, your relatives, your church back home where you used to sing in the choir. But in reality you're a bit of a wild child, and maybe a bit more promiscuous than you let on. 20+ years ago this wasn't readily accepted in all circles as it might be today, especially if you're from a religious family. Let's say that instead of "barging in" your hotel room you were flirting and teasing a couple of guys and maybe even wanting things to go a bit further... and you've also been drinking quite a bit. But then you get a little scared or have a change of heart and try to stop it all. But they won't stop... they won't listen. So you report it to police... and go home. Your family supports you... your friends support you... and your church prays for you. Why would these boys take advantage of a good girl like this? And now you start to think... if you go to court, what's going to happen? Sure, you're telling the truth, or at least kinda... but now everyone is going to hear you were out drinking every night during spring break (and at college too)... they'll hear how you were making out with a bunch of different guys in public places... how you went to more than a couple of different hotel rooms that week, and how you were even heavily flirting with these two guys just before this all went down. Suddenly it doesn't feel like a slam dunk win... and even if you do win, what then? Sure, they'll be punished, but how does that help you? You'll have still been raped... and now everyone will know that you're not this good girl that everyone thinks you are. What are you're parents going to think? What are you grandparents going to think? What about the people in your church?? Maybe it's best to just let the whole thing go... I mean, yes, they raped you, but if isn't like you weren't with a few other random guys that week already. What's the big deal? Just let it go and keep up your image for now. It's not like you're going to get rich suing two random Division III football guys anyway so there's no real win here for you. Just claim stress and back out of it all. Heck, that's not even lying about the stress... just that the stress is about what your friends and family will think more than about facing the men.
  8. You're probably right, Shelton. But, if I'm going to presume Patricia innocent of the alleged crime until he's proven guilty, then I'm going to extend the same benefit of the doubt to the woman. Until I see prove that she made it up and that's why she withdrew, then I'm not going to assume that she's guilty of lying. My best guess of what happened was that it was consensual... college kids who got a little too wild and a little too crazy... probably with the assistance of some alcohol. This is pure speculation of course. I have no idea if she was too drunk to give consent... I have no idea if guys were too drunk to give consent... I don't know if she was a willing participate for the whole time or if she tried to stop it at some point. Until a lot more facts/information comes out (and I doubt that that will happen), I'm not going to presume either party did anything wrong.
  9. I think technically she's not not saying they did it. I think she's simply saying she doesn't want to testify. From what I heard/read, she said she can't appear and doesn't know when. She said she was too stressed and therefore can't face the court. I don't think she's ever recanted what she said. Now, that might be a fine line, but I do think it's important. Even today there is still stigma about coming forward and there will be push back on a women coming forward saying a person raped her. Certainly in 1996 there would be even more stigma about it. I do think it's reasonable to assume that she may have backed out because of stress and worry about her public image. And this is part of the whole trouble with it not having every gone to trial. Without a definitive answer on this and the individuals involved speaking in court under oath, it's all a bunch of "ifs" and "maybes." Maybe she was from a small conservative town where someone who was raped would have been the talk of the town for years to come and really just didn't want it to be public info. Maybe she made it all up and freaked out and didn't want to admit she lied so this was her way of getting out of it without ever admitting to lying.
  10. I tend to think this is a non-story at this point. Unless more comes out in the form other women making credible claims again Patricia or the women decided to speak publicly about it... what else is there to report on? There's only so many times you can repeat the same story: "Guys were accused, accuser withdrew... we don't know why, and she won't speak about it now." There probably will be at least some wacko "stories" from the fringe essentially condemning Patricia without needing the trial, but I don't see that gaining much traction. Probably also some wacko "stories" about the dangers of women making false accusation (without needing proof that the accusation was false) as well. But as it stand... there's just nothing there to report on.
  11. I think he stays unless there is more "evidence" out there. The other key figures ran into trouble because multiple women over an extended period of time were implicating them. So far, we have one incident from 20 years ago. She says "They did it." They say: "We didn't do it." That's not enough for me to fire a guy. I don't think the word of one person in a case that never went to trial should be sufficient to damage a person. Now, if we start having other women coming forward and saying: "Yeah, he attacked me too!" or "The same thing happened to me three years after." Then things get dicey... if there's a reasonable chance that the others are telling the truth (that is, Patricia was at the party where they said it happened, or that the woman did work with him or whatever...) then the Lions might have to act.
  12. Agree 100%... I don't know why she backed out and it's as wrong to assume she backed out because she made it up as it is to assume that the dudes are guilty of the act simply because they were accused. But without the "star" witness, everything else likely only pointed towards and act happening without any solid proof that the act wasn't consensual.
  13. RedRamage

    Infinity War SPOILER discussion

    That actually makes a lot of sense Shelton. I guess I would have expected Strange to clue in the others a bit if this was his plan, but on the other hand he didn't seem to have a very high opinion of Stark so maybe he didn't feel like Stark would understand or be able to go along with the plan. It also wouldn't surprise me to see those too knocked off, Iron man especially given how long Downey has played the character he might be just ready to hand up the amour.... er, motion capture suit... for good. He's played the character now in 9 films (including the next Avengers): Ironman Ironman 2 Avengers 1 Ironman 3 Avengers 2 Cap't America 3 Spiderman Avengers 3 (Yet to be released) Avengers 4
  14. RedRamage

    Infinity War SPOILER discussion

    Okay, I finally got a chance to see this film over the week end, and whoa... good film, painful ending. But I gotta say, I can't see them leaving it like this. Too many major characters who's film line is still lucrative were killed off, which makes me feel like they will find a way to bring them back. Characters like Black Panther, Spiderman, Dr. Strange, Guardians of the Galaxy... From an "outside of the universe" stand point, these are all potential money makers, so I just don't feel like they will stay gone. I would feel differently if there were more "side" characters who were off'd and maybe one or two headliners, but this many headliners... I can't see it staying this way. So, assuming they bring some or all of these characters back, how? How do you do it without it feeling like a "reset" switch? I mean in universe it would seem that someone would turn back time with the time stone maybe, but that feels like a reset switch. Another possibility is when Strange was fighting Thanos I thought one of the special effects used looked like the effect used when they went into the mirror universe in the Dr. Strange movie. Could Strange have simply flipped Thanos into the mirror universe so none of this is real? Again, it feels like a reset switch, but it does explain why Strange was willing to suddenly give up the stone when before we swore that he'd never give up the stone even to protect Stark or Spidey or anyone.
  15. This thread is for people who've already seen the film. There WILL be spoiler discussion here, so don't read it if you haven't seen the film yet!