|
to be anonymous. I stand firm in that.
>Seriously, that deposition of his didn't give you pause at
>all? You genuinely think this was a good, fair trial between
>two people on equal footing?
I think I was on her side after his deposition because he said some off-base things (not very radical because I understand people have different lifestyles) but I didn't read it in awe and shock. He's a rich athlete and I'm pretty sure those dudes (and their entourages) get into some wild scenarios with women.
Now, let's make this personal...personally, I've gone over to a girls house past midnight, I assumed something was going to happen and went there with intent.
Rose saying - "We men. We're going to a woman's house past midnight, we just know." Isn't some rocket science jump.
Now, given her history of saying no to group activity, in court, this looks iffy BUT, she purposely deleted text that indicated she brought her friend there for the purpose of swapping. Now, why would you bring a friend to sleep with a man you're sleeping with and wanted to continue seeing? And why would she also hide it by deleting the text?
Next, she left Rose and her friend alone to sleep together and went to another room with HIS friends. Per their testimony, while the assumption was that Rose was sleeping with her friend, they were also engaging in activity with her.
Sounds like a swap to me.
Now, the 'we men, we can assume' statement doesn't look so bad in context.
This is what I mean by people didn't pay attention and read a 'few' things and made a decision. Hell, Civil court is just to prove liability which is easier to prove than guilt and the evidence didn't prove him liable because of HER actions.
Now, the second part of that is how much she remembered/her ability to consent.
Personally - I have, in my life, slept with someone while both of us were under the influence and also when I wasn't as much under the influence as the person I slept with. I could not attest to their BAC but they weren't 'sober' by all means. I never thought I was taking advantage of the person and I thought they were coherent through the encounter. Fortunately for me, the few times this happened, the participating woman remembered or at least portrayed that she remembered the encounter and was ok with it/seemed to confirm consent.
Could Rose and his friends have taken advantage of her due to her intoxication? That is a possibility, and if anything, that's the one area of this that I'd be uneasy about but, if they had already engaged in sleeping together/swapping earlier in the night at his place, she woke up and let them in later at her place and actively engaged in the activity...I can see how Rose and his friends believed it was above board.
She may have been so drunk that she couldn't remember most of it but the total picture of the nights events tells me that both sides of this story is valid.
I can also see how they think it's about money as she's not filing criminal charges (still within CA's statute) and only seeking a monetary award.
>And we wonder why women don't report this shit (just kidding,
>we don't wonder why at all.)
>
>I really don't see why Derrick Rose deserves every benefit of
>every doubt, but I'm never going to convince you otherwise so
>I'll call it here. Bomani summed up my feelings on this pretty
>well below.
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ywri3sx4kUA
I see various reasons why Rose deserves benefit of the doubt. Because it's a very sketchy situation where both sides were invested and both may not be totally above board on their accounts.
I can see how all of this played out based on both sides testimony:
-Derrick coerced her into group activity, which she was previously not for, but likely conceded to as she was afraid he'd stop seeing her and she wouldn't have access to him financially afterward.
-She found a friend to swap with him and his friends
-Both women drank (and a bit too much) to ease their nerves going into the situation
-They get to his place, drink a bit more and set up the exchange
-Rose in one room with her friend, her in another with his
-Rose didn't like the girl she brought, didn't give her the attention/experience she wanted
-The friend gets angry and ends the night, likely in an attempt to c-block but also to look out for her girl
-They go back home, Rose tries to get his girl to return and finish what was started
-She wants him to come to her, likely because she's tired and drunk
-She falls asleep while he's en route but wakes up after a gang of phone calls and text
-She lets them in, Rose coerces her to finish the nights earlier activities
-She (under the influence) likely agrees to it so long as it's one at a time
-Her roommate comes home and sees the guys chilling and waiting their turn.
-She wakes up hazy the next day, vaguely remembers the nights events but realizes her roommate is home and may have caught her 'out there' which I'm sure (based on how she's handled things) she doesn't want it to surface.
-Rose ghosts her, she gets mad and is now embarrassed so a few days later, tells her roommate she was raped.
-She files a civil suit, not criminal
-She tells a friend she doesn't want her name out because she doesn't want her family to know how she's living in LA.
-She talks to her roommate about a soon-to-happen payday and how it will net her a new plasma TV
^^^That's what I think happened. That's why I don't shame her or Rose and I think it's wrong to call him a rapist.
*Shrug*
____________
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
Okay Sports
