Poison
Pro-Bowler
Offline
Just a reminder that the presumption of innocence, which is a right that exists in the legal system when a person is charged with a criminal offence, is not some sort of shield to the NFL sanctioning him for misconduct (or a shield to any criticism here, which some people apparently think it should be).
Sexual assault cases are *very* difficult to prosecute. If you have two people in a room, no witnesses, no physical evidence (bruising, etc, which is not the nature of the alleged offending here) and one person (Watson) saying he did not know that the other person was not consenting, a conviction is highly unlikely.
The key point is you have approximately 22 individual complainants. An obvious pattern of misconduct which is already seemingly capable of verification on the balance of probabilities (the standard of proof likely to be required in any NFL investigation), based on the text message correspondence that has already emerged.
Watson will absolutely be disciplined by the NFL regardless of whether he is ever convicted. So he should be. I’m glad he’s nowhere near our organisation.
Sexual assault cases are *very* difficult to prosecute. If you have two people in a room, no witnesses, no physical evidence (bruising, etc, which is not the nature of the alleged offending here) and one person (Watson) saying he did not know that the other person was not consenting, a conviction is highly unlikely.
The key point is you have approximately 22 individual complainants. An obvious pattern of misconduct which is already seemingly capable of verification on the balance of probabilities (the standard of proof likely to be required in any NFL investigation), based on the text message correspondence that has already emerged.
Watson will absolutely be disciplined by the NFL regardless of whether he is ever convicted. So he should be. I’m glad he’s nowhere near our organisation.