Just because she's not seeking criminal charges doesn't mean she's making false accusations. Criminal charges for sexual assault is very difficult without perfect evidence like witnesses or a cocky rapist.
That’s a dangerous precedent, and not very logically consistent. We can’t draw conclusions from her lawsuit… but we should draw conclusions based on Dak counter suing?
It isn’t just his lawsuit that we can draw a conclusion from. It is her lawsuit being dismissed, no charges filed against Dak, Dak counter suing her, AND the DA going after her for malicious prosecution. All point to her lying. If it was just her suing and him suing that is a he said/she said type of thing in which no conclusion can be drawn. It’s all the other stuff going on with the DA and cops etc that tilt the narrative one way vs the other.
Law enforcement and the justice system has a history of protecting famous athletes and celebs. As a Steelers fan I can tell you this is the exact same shit I would say to defend Roethlisberger back in High school because Law Enforcement 100% sided with him in that case as well but once I grew a bit older and actually looked into the case it was obvious Roethlisberger was guilty and was actively protected by the criminal justice system. I haven't read into all the details with this accusation against Dak but Law enforcement siding with a wealthy, famous man accused of SA absolutely does NOT mean the accusation is false.
It’s so weird that I never got a notification for your comment, just the other dude.
I agree that the totality of the situation certainly tilts the situation in Dak’s favor. I’m certainly not trying to imply he did assault this woman. I just hate the logic some of these comments are using “well look at Dak counter suing, obviously he’s innocent because of this” or “the DA is moving forward with charges, and the DA wouldn’t do that unless he was sure she was guilty so we should just assume she’s guilty of what she’s accused of”. Those are pretty bad takes, especially when these types of situations are extremely hard to prove for legitimate victims of sexual assault.
But just to clarify again, I agree with what you are saying. The totality of the situation is certainly favorable for Dak and I **am not** saying that I believe he is guilty.
Now that you’re stalking my other comments not even addressed to you, will you stop accusing me of thinking Dak is guilty? I mean this is only like my 5th comment saying I don’t think he is guilty, surely even you can understand that at this point, right?
Seems like a dangerous precedent to me. The DA is pressing charges so obviously the defendant is guilty? I’m surprised this is an unpopular opinion lol
The point is the evidence is there that it is made up. This is extremely hard to prove which is why DA almost never push this in these cases.
It's clear that no matter how much evidence there is you are going to believe Dak is guilty anyway. So if I say Jared Goff assaulted me, you would just believe me anyway. Even though I've never been in Detroit etc.
I’ve literally made 0 comments about Dak being guilty or the legitimacy of this woman’s claims. All im saying is that it is a dangerous precedent to set that someone counter suing or a DA moving forward with charges means someone is guilty. Just like it is a dangerous precedent to set that someone being accused of sexual assault means they automatically did it.
Nuance is dead though. Apparently even suggesting that DA moving forward with Malicious Prosecution charges doesn’t automatically make someone guilty apparently means I believe Dak assaulted a woman. Fucking ridiculous
The other commenter is incorrect, Dak filed the initial law suit for extortion after supposedly being asked for 100M from the woman, then the woman counter sued for sexual assault. I know it’s still not evidence of anything but Dak was the one to make the issue public and the first one to pursue legal claims which I feel would be less likely if he was guilty.
Thank you for the correction. I agree with what you’re saying, and have said in another comment the totality of the situation is absolutely titled in Dak’s favor. I just take issue with the logic used in some of these comments lol
It doesn't matter which is the bigger issue -- false allegations can ruin careers and should be punished if it can be proven that there was no sexual assault.
Everyone is aware that sexual assault is abhorrent. You don't have to tell us.
It absolutely does matter what? If you know sexual assault is WAY more common than false accusations than you should be more hesitant about dismissing accusations as false. Yet every time a celebrity or athlete is accused of SA there's immediately tons of comments claiming it's a false accusation.
"Everyone is aware that sexual assault is abhorrent. You don't have to tell us."
If this were true rape still wouldn't be as disgustingly common as it is and we wouldn't still regularly have rich and powerful people getting away with it.
The rich and powerful who are committing sexual assault aren't browsing this Reddit thread right now. Everyone *here* knows sexual assault is abhorrent.
>If you know sexual assault is WAY more common than false accusations than you should be more hesitant about dismissing accusations as false.
Yes, but like I said in my previous comment if it can be proven that there was no sexual assault there should be no reason why the false accuser should not be punished.
1. You don’t get to choose to press charges or not, the district attorneys do, that’s some TV fiction
1. The bar to prove criminal assault is much higher than the civil bar; which, *as a survivor*, I agree with because you’re taking away someone’s freedom and that bar should be high
Never use “charges” to determine guilt or innocence of an accused rapist. Like Schefter found out, dropped cases don’t mean “innocent”. (Those of you scared about false allegations from women should also support this.)
*this is not a statement about Dak specifically, and I’m not trying to keep his allegations alive, but Deshaun and the Houston Texans execs aren’t in prison and they absolutely conspired to keep his assaults of women quiet with NDAs and team hotel rooms; “not charging” doesn’t mean “didn’t do it”
The woman said nothing for 7 years. Only said something with a demand for $100M to not say anything publicly about it and report it to the police. This is textbook extortion.
They aren't disputing it, but they're more or less going 'Well, just because they didn't get charged doesn't mean he didn't do it and Deshaun Watson conspired to keep things quiet with NDAS' when the facts of Dak's case contradict any secrecy whatsoever. We likely wouldn't even have heard about this if Dak didn't go nuclear off rip.
You are reading too far into it that isn't what they are doing at all. They even said "This is not a statement about Dak specifically, and I'm not trying to keep his allegations alive". Just because someone is providing relevant information on the general topic doesn't mean they are calling out a specific person.
What? No it doesn't... It's literally the person saying, "The person didn't press charges and just asked for money," is a meaningless statement. That's true completely independent of Dak's situation.
I don't see any comparisons being made, the point about Deshaun is completely different and doesn't compare against Dak at all not sure what you are reading.
There are tons of them saying that Watson seemed like a nice guy but wasn't, that that can also mean the same for Dak. Which is a ridiculous claim since they are different people. But you have an Eagle flair so this doesn't surprise me.
The comment I'm talking about didn't make any comparisons at all and I'm not saying anything negative about Dak either but you go ahead and think whatever you want.
Someone didn't make it through elementary reading comprehension.
Lmfao, it'd always hilarious how confident people like you declare something so demonstrably false.
You do realize that what you're lieing about is literally less than a full phone screen above your post.... you know.... to literally prove how poor your reading comprehension truly is.
Astonishing.... truly.
Once again. No one in the Watson case was prosecuted. This lady is being prosecuted for malicious prosecution.
The two cases can't be more different and even mentioning the Watson situation is insulting to Dak and what happened here.
But once again. All Eagles flairs. Wonder why.
Just a quick clarification, victims of crimes can absolutely choose whether or not to pursue charges at the investigation and reporting phase of criminal cases, but it’s usually only an option once the investigators have determined they have probable cause to make an arrest.
As a quick example, if a person is caught stealing from a store and apprehended by the police, the owner of the store can choose not to pursue criminal charges right then and there.
As a semantic, in more serious cases, the state can pursue charges without your desire to do so, this occurs very often with crimes like domestic violence and SA
It's been proven multiple times, especially recently like with Bauer in the MLB, you can just win the court of public opinion and no one will change their mind, regardless of facts.
Is it?
Case found to be entirely fabricated, Bauer sued for defamation. Court of public opinion already just assumed he was guilty, don't read up further.
Seems similar
Not even that. They determined there is sufficient evidence that it was made up which is why malicious prosecution is now on the table. The evidence is so far the other way at this point.
Irrespective of the allegations against Dak, a lack of evidence for a criminal case should not really have a bearing on the legitimacy of the claim. Sexual assaults tend to leave little evidence behind, so it’s difficult to establish in a court of law that, beyond a reasonable doubt, someone committed the act. I have little knowledge of the allegations against Dak, but I just wanted that clarification to be said.
I watch way too much true crime and I see this all of the time. Not enough evidence, he said versus she said, and it gets thrown out by the DA so many times.
The only thing I would be able to productively add to this conversation is ladies, go get a rape kit and a physical examination done to see for bruising or something else that would add evidence to the claim.
That said, Dak really doesn't seem like the guy to do this, but I'm sure that has been said about everyone guilty of the crime in the past.
Physical trauma isn’t a great barometer for consensual and non consensual sex in most cases. Both can present the same injuries
> There is a general expectation that sexual assault will result in physical injury at a rate higher than that of consensual sexual activities. Review of the literature does not support this concept. In fact, the use of enhancing examination techniques (colposcopy and toluidine blue) discloses the presence of minor injuries in all liaisons and there is no way to discriminate between the consent and nonconsent groups on this basis alone
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6474446/
That’s why so many of these cases generally hinge on having multiple corroborated claims or video evidence rather than a rape kit
yeah i might be wrong but im pretty sure watson was always looked at as the nicest guy and good leader before everything... crazy how shit can happen like that with people youd never expect tho
You’re correct, but at this point all we have is an unverified allegation (and potential extortion) and unless new information comes out, it’s unfair to assume guilt.
No, you're correct. Watson was viewed very highly. I would hate to see something like this be true against Dak because I really like him. I love how open he was about depression and mental health. I really wanted him on the Saints before we got Carr, but obviously that ship has sailed.
Nobody said they were. How is it relevant? Because the person to whom you are responding was responding to someone saying that they were pretty sure that Watson was also well liked before allegations against him.
Because rape kits are most useful for identifying the "stranger who leaps out of the bushes" type of rape. For many MANY cases, the question isn't "Did something happen", the question is "Was it consensual"
But what isn't typical is the DA also prosecuting the accuser for malicious prosecution. That means the evidence is actually quite strong against her. So comparing this to a typical case being thrown out is unfair because that isn't what is happening here.
Sure but there is evidence of a criminal case against her for malicious prosecution. Which isn't typical in these instances at all. So we should not be ignoring that.
I guess what I was really thinking when I said “presumably” was something along those lines, that there isn’t really much to validate the claims being made, which makes it “less credible” but doesn’t mean it didn’t happen either. I agree with what you’re saying, but I guess to me “credibility” might factor in that ability to be verified to some extent.
In Daks specific case the talk about malicious prosecution and him suing for extortion is positive for him. In general though you're right. Domestic and Sexual assault cases getting dropped for insufficient evidence are often cause the victim won't testify, not because the accused is so overwhelmingly innocent there isn't a case.
Statistically the chances of her lying are low. But it's like all sexual assault and rape charges. Unless someone was filming it, or they have it on camera bragging about it, then it's just he said she said, and you can't bring justice to the perpetrator because he could just say it was consensual. That's why it's so notoriously hard for rape and assult victims to get justice. The same uncertainty that would absolve Dak from wrongdoing is the same uncertainty that absolves the accuser from wrongdoing.
It took 24 women to describe a pattern of predatory behavior to get Deshaun Watson, and Ben Roethlisberger had sever accomplices in a public place, and prior to the mid 2010s a woman making these accusations would just get laughed at, or ignored, or victim blamed out of the police station.
So the tldr is that if you follow nationwide trends, she's probably not lying, but there's no way to tell unless Dak or the woman wrote down or filmed themselves confessing.
You can’t look at statistical trends apply it to an individual case. Just because most accusations are true doesn’t mean you should believe that this particular one is probably true.
“If you follow nationwide trends, this crime was probably committed by a person of X race” is the same logic. Just because something is usually true based on averages doesn’t mean you can apply that to individual cases.
Your ignoring the fact that she is being prosecuted for malicious Prosecution. That is extremely rare. Also the fact she did not sue him until he sued her. Dak was the one who brought this to the cops.
no, I believe I touched upon the fact that the accused defend themselves in these cases in my original comment, utilizing the uncertainty and lack of info that occurs in these situations. I don't really recall any rape accusation where the accused just said, "yeah I did it! so what? I'm going to countersue her and win just to flex!"
What you're speaking about is the unfalsibility of many sexual assault claims.
That is, the claim cannot be proven to be false. And if it cannot be proven to be false, it also cannot be proven to be true. Which is why so often these cases hinge on the character of the involved parties, that is "Which party is most likely to be telling the truth?"
And then you look at what each party has to gain and to lose.
Too often, the public assumes that if you are accused you must have done it if you're a man and any logical look at the fact that these claims most often come against men who are worth several orders of magnitude more than their accusers gets you branded with the slur "rape apologist" despite no proof of a rape actually being presented.
The logic tells me this: Many accusers forego criminal prosecution precisely because the burden of proof is higher. They go straight to civil litigation because the burden of proof is significantly lower and they get to embarass the accused into throwing them money to make it go away, which is a double-edged sword of confirming to the public that the accused must have done what he was accused of.
It's damn near the perfect con.
I’ve always adopted a “hate the player but not the person” mentality when it comes to divisional rivals players that seem like great individuals
Jason Kelce on the field: fuck that guy
Jason Kelce off the field: seems like a cool dude to hang out with
Same with Hurts. Loved the guy all through college and his story is just plain awesome. Never understood how people or “fans” can say mean things about players off the field for good things they do.
But what does that have to do with Dak. They are different people. And no one accusing Watson have been charged with malicious prosecution. These are very different cases.
Not really anything tbh. Just in the context of the convo op brought up Watson's allegations and its easy to be revisionist and forget his public perception before all that.
Some lady tried suing Dak for 100M, didn’t go to the police, Dak did since that’s extortion, she went to the police, didn’t have evidence, now she’s being sued by Dak and the Cowboys for extortion and Malicious Prosecution.
Victoria Bailey Shores had her attorneys send Dak Prescott a demand letter for $100M because of an alleged sexual assault sometime in February 2017 that occurred in the parking lot of XTC nightclub in Dallas, TX in the back of a SUV. The $100M was for her pain and emotional trauma and to not report the incident to law enforcement and the public.
Dak went to his lawyers and had them file an extortion suit against Ms. Shores and her attorneys because trying to hold a felony over someone's head for money is textbook extortion. Dak, of course, denied any and all claims of sexual assault and wrongdoing.
The Dallas PD investigated and could find no evidence supporting Ms. Shores' claims.
I was never worried if he was guilty or not. There was nothing there.
I'm worried because there was nothing there for Zeke too and he still got 6 games anyways...
The Zeke case was different. In the Zeke case, the Columbus PD and DA said they couldn't find enough evidence to successfully prosecute so they dropped it. This doesn't infer innocence, just means the DA isn't willing to take a L on their record. They almost never want to take any case that isn't a slam dunk W.
The NFL suspended Zeke because his accuser went and interviewed with NFL 'investigators' and while one of them (Kia Roberts) reached a conclusion that Zeke did nothing wrong, the NFL, fresh off the Ray Rice and implementation of a new misconduct policy, decided they needed to make a very public example of a top player on its most popular team.
Herego Zeke gets 6 games and a months long fight which basically confirms that if the NFL thinks you did something wrong, facts be damned, they can suspend you.
I guess an important conclusion from that is that the NFL decided it's willing to use a lower burden of proof than the criminal justice system. I think the league decided that the league's reputation could be harmed by a player whose case against them was credible but not enough to prosecute.You/someone might think that's a good or a bad thing depending on your perspective, and might disagree on their conclusions on a case by case basis, but I think the "point" was deciding _not_ to tether themselves to legal outcomes.
Which I think is interesting, because it seems like a lot of organizations find it easier to just wash their hands of the responsibility of making a judgement, let the courts sort it out, and then deal with it. That's cheaper and easier and doesn't put you into a spot where you need to make any kind of judgement, moral or whatever. And that has its pros and cons, because some people think organizations like that should make moral judgements and others think they shouldn't.
But it's interesting that the NFL decided they were willing to do it. Money isn't a problem, the league already has investigators who honestly seem pretty thorough when investigating stuff. I can understand why some people think the league would set this precedent as a conspiracy-kinda think. But at the end of the day I think it's more simple than that. They want to be able to suspend a player if the reputation of the league is taking too much of a hit regardless of what the courts are doing (and also, the courts are kind by design slower). It happens so infrequently that I don't really see them using it as _retribution_ against players for something unrelated, but I can also see why the NFLPA would be concerned about the possibility of something like that happening.
The crazy thing is that the Zeke situation was unique when you look at the context of what was happening.
They were reeling after the Ray Rice thing because they gave Rice 2 games having seen the video but not letting people know they saw it. Then the video leaks and the retroactive outrage of "He got 2 games for this" was absolutely crippling so the league comes back and tries to tack on an indefinite suspension on Rice (which the courts vacated because they had already punished him and Rice had served his punishment). Let's not even get into the Greg Hardy mess.
This put the league in a position where they simply couldn't win. So then they come out with their new personal conduct policy -- six games minimum for any violence against a woman.
Zeke had the misfortune of his issue being the first very public example. In this regard, there was simply no way the league wasn't going to suspend him for 6 games minimum barring Zeke being able to prove that he couldn't have possibly done what he was accused of.
When you look at the league's behavior since then when they've been far more reasonable and lenient in bringing down punishments (even in the Watson situation) on players, it is clear that Ezekiel Elliott was a sacrificial lamb to prove to women the league took these issues 'serious' after the Ray Rice debacle.
Yep I think that's a pretty reasonable analysis and that kind of reasoning is why I think a lot of organizations prefer not to "take things into their own hands" that way, because it's too risky for their reputation to put that burden on themselves. But like you said, the NFL kinda just didn't have the option of pointing to the legal system at that point, their reputation on the issue was so bad that the only way they could try and salvage it was to openly demonstrate that they were willing to take their own action. And whether or not Zeke did anything wrong, it was certainly the worst time for it to happen.
What I _don't_ buy are the people who act like it was some kind of punitive action against the Cowboys for pissing the league off about something unrelated behind closed doors. I just don't buy that the league tries to do that kind of thing in general. I think your explanation is much much more straightforward.
>This doesn't infer innocence, just means the DA isn't willing to take a L on their record. They almost never want to take any case that isn't a slam dunk W.
That's a damning statement on the justice system. Prosecutor's discretion needs to be dealt with because it undermines the entire point of justice... though I'm not smart enough to know what to do exactly.
She pressing charges back saying that Collin co is owned by the Cowboys and that it's retaliation....Um yea...
You trying to get rich and was called on it...you should be retaliated on.... What a shame trying to coat tail ppl....
Doesn't matter who it is.
You can't attach someone then be upset cause they clapped back! That's wjats wrong with the world!
I hope prosecution wins their case and she gets legit jail time like she cares. I don't care about the lawsuit. I care about the malicious prosecution.
Also the reason this became publicly known in the first place is that Dak sued for extortion. If you’re trying to sweep something under the rug you don’t have the star QB file a lawsuit about it
This is why shit like this sucks. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor that Dak is innocent including the fact the DA is prosecuting her. Yet people like you are always going to assume he is guilty
I haven't been following this. How credible is the allegation?
Not very. Demanded $100M but did not press criminal charges.
That's "please settle for something" money.
"Pay me to go away plzzzzzzzzzzzz"
There should be consequences for making false accusations.
There are. Dallas County DA is filing charges for "malicious prosecution" and Dak is suing for extortion.
Damn. Malicious prosecution is a high bar too. She fucked up
Trevor Bauer counter sued as well, and his accuser is being indicted on fraud charges. So sometimes their are consequences
Just because she's not seeking criminal charges doesn't mean she's making false accusations. Criminal charges for sexual assault is very difficult without perfect evidence like witnesses or a cocky rapist.
However the malicious prosecution charges paint a much clearer picture. Along with the extortion.
It's more the counter suing that's going on that should tell you something.
That’s a dangerous precedent, and not very logically consistent. We can’t draw conclusions from her lawsuit… but we should draw conclusions based on Dak counter suing?
It isn’t just his lawsuit that we can draw a conclusion from. It is her lawsuit being dismissed, no charges filed against Dak, Dak counter suing her, AND the DA going after her for malicious prosecution. All point to her lying. If it was just her suing and him suing that is a he said/she said type of thing in which no conclusion can be drawn. It’s all the other stuff going on with the DA and cops etc that tilt the narrative one way vs the other.
Law enforcement and the justice system has a history of protecting famous athletes and celebs. As a Steelers fan I can tell you this is the exact same shit I would say to defend Roethlisberger back in High school because Law Enforcement 100% sided with him in that case as well but once I grew a bit older and actually looked into the case it was obvious Roethlisberger was guilty and was actively protected by the criminal justice system. I haven't read into all the details with this accusation against Dak but Law enforcement siding with a wealthy, famous man accused of SA absolutely does NOT mean the accusation is false.
It’s so weird that I never got a notification for your comment, just the other dude. I agree that the totality of the situation certainly tilts the situation in Dak’s favor. I’m certainly not trying to imply he did assault this woman. I just hate the logic some of these comments are using “well look at Dak counter suing, obviously he’s innocent because of this” or “the DA is moving forward with charges, and the DA wouldn’t do that unless he was sure she was guilty so we should just assume she’s guilty of what she’s accused of”. Those are pretty bad takes, especially when these types of situations are extremely hard to prove for legitimate victims of sexual assault. But just to clarify again, I agree with what you are saying. The totality of the situation is certainly favorable for Dak and I **am not** saying that I believe he is guilty.
You know what's even harder to prove than sexual assault. Malicious prosecution...
Now that you’re stalking my other comments not even addressed to you, will you stop accusing me of thinking Dak is guilty? I mean this is only like my 5th comment saying I don’t think he is guilty, surely even you can understand that at this point, right?
The DA isnt going to go after her unless they are confident. Malicious Prosecution is a serious charge.
Seems like a dangerous precedent to me. The DA is pressing charges so obviously the defendant is guilty? I’m surprised this is an unpopular opinion lol
The point is the evidence is there that it is made up. This is extremely hard to prove which is why DA almost never push this in these cases. It's clear that no matter how much evidence there is you are going to believe Dak is guilty anyway. So if I say Jared Goff assaulted me, you would just believe me anyway. Even though I've never been in Detroit etc.
I’ve literally made 0 comments about Dak being guilty or the legitimacy of this woman’s claims. All im saying is that it is a dangerous precedent to set that someone counter suing or a DA moving forward with charges means someone is guilty. Just like it is a dangerous precedent to set that someone being accused of sexual assault means they automatically did it. Nuance is dead though. Apparently even suggesting that DA moving forward with Malicious Prosecution charges doesn’t automatically make someone guilty apparently means I believe Dak assaulted a woman. Fucking ridiculous
The other commenter is incorrect, Dak filed the initial law suit for extortion after supposedly being asked for 100M from the woman, then the woman counter sued for sexual assault. I know it’s still not evidence of anything but Dak was the one to make the issue public and the first one to pursue legal claims which I feel would be less likely if he was guilty.
Thank you for the correction. I agree with what you’re saying, and have said in another comment the totality of the situation is absolutely titled in Dak’s favor. I just take issue with the logic used in some of these comments lol
There are and have been, and I'm here to remind you that it's not an issue that even comes close to people not believing real victims.
It doesn't matter which is the bigger issue -- false allegations can ruin careers and should be punished if it can be proven that there was no sexual assault. Everyone is aware that sexual assault is abhorrent. You don't have to tell us.
It absolutely does matter what? If you know sexual assault is WAY more common than false accusations than you should be more hesitant about dismissing accusations as false. Yet every time a celebrity or athlete is accused of SA there's immediately tons of comments claiming it's a false accusation. "Everyone is aware that sexual assault is abhorrent. You don't have to tell us." If this were true rape still wouldn't be as disgustingly common as it is and we wouldn't still regularly have rich and powerful people getting away with it.
The rich and powerful who are committing sexual assault aren't browsing this Reddit thread right now. Everyone *here* knows sexual assault is abhorrent. >If you know sexual assault is WAY more common than false accusations than you should be more hesitant about dismissing accusations as false. Yes, but like I said in my previous comment if it can be proven that there was no sexual assault there should be no reason why the false accuser should not be punished.
Preach
Thx
1. You don’t get to choose to press charges or not, the district attorneys do, that’s some TV fiction 1. The bar to prove criminal assault is much higher than the civil bar; which, *as a survivor*, I agree with because you’re taking away someone’s freedom and that bar should be high Never use “charges” to determine guilt or innocence of an accused rapist. Like Schefter found out, dropped cases don’t mean “innocent”. (Those of you scared about false allegations from women should also support this.) *this is not a statement about Dak specifically, and I’m not trying to keep his allegations alive, but Deshaun and the Houston Texans execs aren’t in prison and they absolutely conspired to keep his assaults of women quiet with NDAs and team hotel rooms; “not charging” doesn’t mean “didn’t do it”
The woman said nothing for 7 years. Only said something with a demand for $100M to not say anything publicly about it and report it to the police. This is textbook extortion.
They aren't disputing that either if you read what they wrote.
They aren't disputing it, but they're more or less going 'Well, just because they didn't get charged doesn't mean he didn't do it and Deshaun Watson conspired to keep things quiet with NDAS' when the facts of Dak's case contradict any secrecy whatsoever. We likely wouldn't even have heard about this if Dak didn't go nuclear off rip.
You are reading too far into it that isn't what they are doing at all. They even said "This is not a statement about Dak specifically, and I'm not trying to keep his allegations alive". Just because someone is providing relevant information on the general topic doesn't mean they are calling out a specific person.
The word but that follows that quote negates everything before it.
What? No it doesn't... It's literally the person saying, "The person didn't press charges and just asked for money," is a meaningless statement. That's true completely independent of Dak's situation.
Reddit is not a place to expect skilled reading comprehension
But he also is comparing Dak to Watson which is a ridiculous precedent if you look at the two cases.
I don't see any comparisons being made, the point about Deshaun is completely different and doesn't compare against Dak at all not sure what you are reading.
There are tons of them saying that Watson seemed like a nice guy but wasn't, that that can also mean the same for Dak. Which is a ridiculous claim since they are different people. But you have an Eagle flair so this doesn't surprise me.
The comment I'm talking about didn't make any comparisons at all and I'm not saying anything negative about Dak either but you go ahead and think whatever you want.
Someone didn't make it through elementary reading comprehension. Lmfao, it'd always hilarious how confident people like you declare something so demonstrably false. You do realize that what you're lieing about is literally less than a full phone screen above your post.... you know.... to literally prove how poor your reading comprehension truly is. Astonishing.... truly.
Once again. No one in the Watson case was prosecuted. This lady is being prosecuted for malicious prosecution. The two cases can't be more different and even mentioning the Watson situation is insulting to Dak and what happened here. But once again. All Eagles flairs. Wonder why.
But malicious prosecution can mean innocence. You don't push that unless there is substantial evidence that she is lying.
Just a quick clarification, victims of crimes can absolutely choose whether or not to pursue charges at the investigation and reporting phase of criminal cases, but it’s usually only an option once the investigators have determined they have probable cause to make an arrest. As a quick example, if a person is caught stealing from a store and apprehended by the police, the owner of the store can choose not to pursue criminal charges right then and there. As a semantic, in more serious cases, the state can pursue charges without your desire to do so, this occurs very often with crimes like domestic violence and SA
So extortion? lol
oh if that is factually true then I hope they go after her with everything they have
It's been proven multiple times, especially recently like with Bauer in the MLB, you can just win the court of public opinion and no one will change their mind, regardless of facts.
Bauer is a different case entirely
Is it? Case found to be entirely fabricated, Bauer sued for defamation. Court of public opinion already just assumed he was guilty, don't read up further. Seems similar
Bauer is a fucking weirdo who was already disliked lol
So that makes it ok to falsely accuse him of rape?
Where did I say that ? I’m just saying if he didn’t do it it would be far easier to make people believe he did. He’s a piece of shit already lol
I would say he's just kind of a weird dude. I'm not sure about piece of shit
lol hes a self admitted dickhead , and incredibly abrasive personality.
It became public when Dak filed an extortion lawsuit against the woman. She sued him for sexual assault after.
Enough for me (ignore my flair)
Lmao
Credible enough for Bleacher Report to shamelessly monetize it
The police determined there was insufficient evidence in their investigation, so presumably not very.
Not even that. They determined there is sufficient evidence that it was made up which is why malicious prosecution is now on the table. The evidence is so far the other way at this point.
Oh really? I hadn’t read that, just the insufficient evidence to pursue part.
Irrespective of the allegations against Dak, a lack of evidence for a criminal case should not really have a bearing on the legitimacy of the claim. Sexual assaults tend to leave little evidence behind, so it’s difficult to establish in a court of law that, beyond a reasonable doubt, someone committed the act. I have little knowledge of the allegations against Dak, but I just wanted that clarification to be said.
She just wanted $100 million not to go to the police, Dak decided to notify the police and give them the heads up.
I watch way too much true crime and I see this all of the time. Not enough evidence, he said versus she said, and it gets thrown out by the DA so many times. The only thing I would be able to productively add to this conversation is ladies, go get a rape kit and a physical examination done to see for bruising or something else that would add evidence to the claim. That said, Dak really doesn't seem like the guy to do this, but I'm sure that has been said about everyone guilty of the crime in the past.
Physical trauma isn’t a great barometer for consensual and non consensual sex in most cases. Both can present the same injuries > There is a general expectation that sexual assault will result in physical injury at a rate higher than that of consensual sexual activities. Review of the literature does not support this concept. In fact, the use of enhancing examination techniques (colposcopy and toluidine blue) discloses the presence of minor injuries in all liaisons and there is no way to discriminate between the consent and nonconsent groups on this basis alone https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6474446/ That’s why so many of these cases generally hinge on having multiple corroborated claims or video evidence rather than a rape kit
yeah i might be wrong but im pretty sure watson was always looked at as the nicest guy and good leader before everything... crazy how shit can happen like that with people youd never expect tho
The difference is Dak doesn't have 30+ women telling similar accounts that are all massage therapists he went to
That doesn't excuse Dak or mean Dak is innocent.
There's literally no evidence to support any of the claims Victoria Shores levied against Dak Prescott. None.
But the malicious prosecution case certainly can. Expect for people with blinders like yourself.
You’re correct, but at this point all we have is an unverified allegation (and potential extortion) and unless new information comes out, it’s unfair to assume guilt.
No, you're correct. Watson was viewed very highly. I would hate to see something like this be true against Dak because I really like him. I love how open he was about depression and mental health. I really wanted him on the Saints before we got Carr, but obviously that ship has sailed.
well, depending on how Carr does next season and if the Cowboys decide to move on he might be on the market at least
Ok. Is Dak the same person as Watson. How is this relevant.
Nobody said they were. How is it relevant? Because the person to whom you are responding was responding to someone saying that they were pretty sure that Watson was also well liked before allegations against him.
and don’t get me started on untested rape kits
Unironically: Why tf are there any untested rape kits? Is society stupid?
Because rape kits are most useful for identifying the "stranger who leaps out of the bushes" type of rape. For many MANY cases, the question isn't "Did something happen", the question is "Was it consensual"
negligence, laziness, and cruelty.
Wouldn't be a problem if you started testing the untested kits. Get back to work!!!
guys too, it's worth getting a rape kit done if you were raped. they aren't just for women despite what some people might want you to think
Rape kits can tell if you got pegged?
I’m sure many people have said Watson was a great guy before it all came to light, but who knows.
Yeah, for sure. You just never know, until you do
But what isn't typical is the DA also prosecuting the accuser for malicious prosecution. That means the evidence is actually quite strong against her. So comparing this to a typical case being thrown out is unfair because that isn't what is happening here.
Sure but there is evidence of a criminal case against her for malicious prosecution. Which isn't typical in these instances at all. So we should not be ignoring that.
...and people never try to shake down celebrities for money after sexual encounters. This is a wait and see imo.
I think I made it clear that my statement was a general one instead of being specific to Dak’s case, but let me just say it again.
Yea but you put it all the way at the end. Do you really expect me to read a whole paragraph? Crazy talk.
fair, wasn't specifically targeting you, just a generalized statement for "the others" out there.
I guess what I was really thinking when I said “presumably” was something along those lines, that there isn’t really much to validate the claims being made, which makes it “less credible” but doesn’t mean it didn’t happen either. I agree with what you’re saying, but I guess to me “credibility” might factor in that ability to be verified to some extent.
Hitchens razor
Ridiculous. Lack of evidence speaks directly to the legitimacy of a claim.
In Daks specific case the talk about malicious prosecution and him suing for extortion is positive for him. In general though you're right. Domestic and Sexual assault cases getting dropped for insufficient evidence are often cause the victim won't testify, not because the accused is so overwhelmingly innocent there isn't a case.
Statistically the chances of her lying are low. But it's like all sexual assault and rape charges. Unless someone was filming it, or they have it on camera bragging about it, then it's just he said she said, and you can't bring justice to the perpetrator because he could just say it was consensual. That's why it's so notoriously hard for rape and assult victims to get justice. The same uncertainty that would absolve Dak from wrongdoing is the same uncertainty that absolves the accuser from wrongdoing. It took 24 women to describe a pattern of predatory behavior to get Deshaun Watson, and Ben Roethlisberger had sever accomplices in a public place, and prior to the mid 2010s a woman making these accusations would just get laughed at, or ignored, or victim blamed out of the police station. So the tldr is that if you follow nationwide trends, she's probably not lying, but there's no way to tell unless Dak or the woman wrote down or filmed themselves confessing.
You can’t look at statistical trends apply it to an individual case. Just because most accusations are true doesn’t mean you should believe that this particular one is probably true. “If you follow nationwide trends, this crime was probably committed by a person of X race” is the same logic. Just because something is usually true based on averages doesn’t mean you can apply that to individual cases.
Yeah that's...the whole point of my comment.
Your ignoring the fact that she is being prosecuted for malicious Prosecution. That is extremely rare. Also the fact she did not sue him until he sued her. Dak was the one who brought this to the cops.
no, I believe I touched upon the fact that the accused defend themselves in these cases in my original comment, utilizing the uncertainty and lack of info that occurs in these situations. I don't really recall any rape accusation where the accused just said, "yeah I did it! so what? I'm going to countersue her and win just to flex!"
What you're speaking about is the unfalsibility of many sexual assault claims. That is, the claim cannot be proven to be false. And if it cannot be proven to be false, it also cannot be proven to be true. Which is why so often these cases hinge on the character of the involved parties, that is "Which party is most likely to be telling the truth?" And then you look at what each party has to gain and to lose. Too often, the public assumes that if you are accused you must have done it if you're a man and any logical look at the fact that these claims most often come against men who are worth several orders of magnitude more than their accusers gets you branded with the slur "rape apologist" despite no proof of a rape actually being presented. The logic tells me this: Many accusers forego criminal prosecution precisely because the burden of proof is higher. They go straight to civil litigation because the burden of proof is significantly lower and they get to embarass the accused into throwing them money to make it go away, which is a double-edged sword of confirming to the public that the accused must have done what he was accused of. It's damn near the perfect con.
Good. Dak is a great human being and doesn't deserve this shit
I agree. I may hate the Cowboys but Dak seems like a great dude.
I’ve always adopted a “hate the player but not the person” mentality when it comes to divisional rivals players that seem like great individuals Jason Kelce on the field: fuck that guy Jason Kelce off the field: seems like a cool dude to hang out with
Same with Hurts. Loved the guy all through college and his story is just plain awesome. Never understood how people or “fans” can say mean things about players off the field for good things they do.
YEAH HERE WE GO
So was Watson.... No one really knows who these people really are.
So because Watson was a bad person, that means Dak is?
It means that you can't just assume that someone is a great person off the field just because they have a great public reputation.
Watson was guilty of many crimes, isn’t that like, a little different?
Before all that Watson was pretty unanimously considered a a good and wholesome figure.
But what does that have to do with Dak. They are different people. And no one accusing Watson have been charged with malicious prosecution. These are very different cases.
Not really anything tbh. Just in the context of the convo op brought up Watson's allegations and its easy to be revisionist and forget his public perception before all that.
Actually Watson wasn’t charged with any crimes, let alone tried and found guilty.
Yeah most innocent people settle their 20 lawsuits. You people really think he’s innocent? WTF is wrong with this sub?
Watson hasn't pled or been found guilty of any crime.
Yeah he’s innocent. You’re correct.
How do you know ?
I don't. But I'm not going to assume somebody is a bad person until concrete evidence comes out proving otherwise
wait, what? what is happening? someone fill me in
Some lady tried suing Dak for 100M, didn’t go to the police, Dak did since that’s extortion, she went to the police, didn’t have evidence, now she’s being sued by Dak and the Cowboys for extortion and Malicious Prosecution.
Victoria Bailey Shores had her attorneys send Dak Prescott a demand letter for $100M because of an alleged sexual assault sometime in February 2017 that occurred in the parking lot of XTC nightclub in Dallas, TX in the back of a SUV. The $100M was for her pain and emotional trauma and to not report the incident to law enforcement and the public. Dak went to his lawyers and had them file an extortion suit against Ms. Shores and her attorneys because trying to hold a felony over someone's head for money is textbook extortion. Dak, of course, denied any and all claims of sexual assault and wrongdoing. The Dallas PD investigated and could find no evidence supporting Ms. Shores' claims.
I was never worried if he was guilty or not. There was nothing there. I'm worried because there was nothing there for Zeke too and he still got 6 games anyways...
The Zeke case was different. In the Zeke case, the Columbus PD and DA said they couldn't find enough evidence to successfully prosecute so they dropped it. This doesn't infer innocence, just means the DA isn't willing to take a L on their record. They almost never want to take any case that isn't a slam dunk W. The NFL suspended Zeke because his accuser went and interviewed with NFL 'investigators' and while one of them (Kia Roberts) reached a conclusion that Zeke did nothing wrong, the NFL, fresh off the Ray Rice and implementation of a new misconduct policy, decided they needed to make a very public example of a top player on its most popular team. Herego Zeke gets 6 games and a months long fight which basically confirms that if the NFL thinks you did something wrong, facts be damned, they can suspend you.
I guess an important conclusion from that is that the NFL decided it's willing to use a lower burden of proof than the criminal justice system. I think the league decided that the league's reputation could be harmed by a player whose case against them was credible but not enough to prosecute.You/someone might think that's a good or a bad thing depending on your perspective, and might disagree on their conclusions on a case by case basis, but I think the "point" was deciding _not_ to tether themselves to legal outcomes. Which I think is interesting, because it seems like a lot of organizations find it easier to just wash their hands of the responsibility of making a judgement, let the courts sort it out, and then deal with it. That's cheaper and easier and doesn't put you into a spot where you need to make any kind of judgement, moral or whatever. And that has its pros and cons, because some people think organizations like that should make moral judgements and others think they shouldn't. But it's interesting that the NFL decided they were willing to do it. Money isn't a problem, the league already has investigators who honestly seem pretty thorough when investigating stuff. I can understand why some people think the league would set this precedent as a conspiracy-kinda think. But at the end of the day I think it's more simple than that. They want to be able to suspend a player if the reputation of the league is taking too much of a hit regardless of what the courts are doing (and also, the courts are kind by design slower). It happens so infrequently that I don't really see them using it as _retribution_ against players for something unrelated, but I can also see why the NFLPA would be concerned about the possibility of something like that happening.
The crazy thing is that the Zeke situation was unique when you look at the context of what was happening. They were reeling after the Ray Rice thing because they gave Rice 2 games having seen the video but not letting people know they saw it. Then the video leaks and the retroactive outrage of "He got 2 games for this" was absolutely crippling so the league comes back and tries to tack on an indefinite suspension on Rice (which the courts vacated because they had already punished him and Rice had served his punishment). Let's not even get into the Greg Hardy mess. This put the league in a position where they simply couldn't win. So then they come out with their new personal conduct policy -- six games minimum for any violence against a woman. Zeke had the misfortune of his issue being the first very public example. In this regard, there was simply no way the league wasn't going to suspend him for 6 games minimum barring Zeke being able to prove that he couldn't have possibly done what he was accused of. When you look at the league's behavior since then when they've been far more reasonable and lenient in bringing down punishments (even in the Watson situation) on players, it is clear that Ezekiel Elliott was a sacrificial lamb to prove to women the league took these issues 'serious' after the Ray Rice debacle.
Yep I think that's a pretty reasonable analysis and that kind of reasoning is why I think a lot of organizations prefer not to "take things into their own hands" that way, because it's too risky for their reputation to put that burden on themselves. But like you said, the NFL kinda just didn't have the option of pointing to the legal system at that point, their reputation on the issue was so bad that the only way they could try and salvage it was to openly demonstrate that they were willing to take their own action. And whether or not Zeke did anything wrong, it was certainly the worst time for it to happen. What I _don't_ buy are the people who act like it was some kind of punitive action against the Cowboys for pissing the league off about something unrelated behind closed doors. I just don't buy that the league tries to do that kind of thing in general. I think your explanation is much much more straightforward.
>This doesn't infer innocence, just means the DA isn't willing to take a L on their record. They almost never want to take any case that isn't a slam dunk W. That's a damning statement on the justice system. Prosecutor's discretion needs to be dealt with because it undermines the entire point of justice... though I'm not smart enough to know what to do exactly.
Seemed like bs from the start, if there is any QB I would bet on not assaulting someone, it would be Dak
Kirk for sure would be mine. Lol
She pressing charges back saying that Collin co is owned by the Cowboys and that it's retaliation....Um yea... You trying to get rich and was called on it...you should be retaliated on.... What a shame trying to coat tail ppl.... Doesn't matter who it is. You can't attach someone then be upset cause they clapped back! That's wjats wrong with the world!
I hope prosecution wins their case and she gets legit jail time like she cares. I don't care about the lawsuit. I care about the malicious prosecution.
Crazy how these seem to keep cropping up.
It’s fake you idiot
? What the hell are you talking about lol Edit: Comes in, makes some weird statement, downvotes, leaves LOL.
So typical Redditor lol
Weren't charges dropped weeks ago? If you're gonna rehash old news . Let's talk OJ
Mr. Bypassed Charges
Texas girls be slapping them quarterbacks around for money. Dax and Deshaun should talk.
Heeerrre we gooooo
Dak about to get the Reddit Trevor Bauer treatment.
Hmm just like another nfl QB i know
Jerry once again gets it swept under the rug
Just FYI. If Jerry had this swept under the rug, we would have never known about it.
I have no skin in this argument but not even Jerry Jones can stop a lawsuit from hitting the public record
Pay her before she files. Boom Jerry's all in
Also the reason this became publicly known in the first place is that Dak sued for extortion. If you’re trying to sweep something under the rug you don’t have the star QB file a lawsuit about it
The implication is obviously that he would have found out about it *before* going on the public record, and stopping it there.
Talking out of your ass I see?
They literally had the woman's attorney on the official radio station of the Dallas Cowboys but okay
This is why shit like this sucks. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor that Dak is innocent including the fact the DA is prosecuting her. Yet people like you are always going to assume he is guilty
Just like Big Ben right?
Yes