Off Topic · To those Knicks fans dismissing Rose's rape case... (page 9)

martin wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:There seems to be a hideous double standard here. Athletes are expected to be "morally reprehensible people", that's what I can gather reading these last few pages, and any woman attempting to have a relationship with said athlete know going in that's what is to be expected. Just spread your legs and be a loose whore, you asked for it!

This is not accurate. Go back and read and then respond to the exact posts that you think illustrate your point. Otherwise it's just your incorrect assumption or worse.

redacted wrote:
Jane Doe should've known better. She clearly knew Rose was that kind of guy cuz he had shown it the entire relationship. This could be a problem for her with the jury.

redacted wrote:

It's definitely obvious she seeks money primarily.

redacted wrote:
Or..."I really want to be with this guy who seems to be luke warm towards me and drifting away. So yeah, I'll agree to give in to his fantasy (after I got drunk) because I think that's the only way to keep him (and his money) in my life." Then she sobers up, thinks about what she did, has regrets and shame, wants him to pay for the mistake she agree to while under the influence (though still conscious).

redacted wrote:

Rose has to pay to play,and he will pay up, but I know in my heart she's not a saint in this, and he must feel so too, or he would have been gave her hush money. Or maybe she didn't want to go that route and then be charge with extortion, IDK, but there is always 2 sides to the story.

mreinman wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

mreinman wrote:
pushing your girl really hard to have your nasty boys included in itself (to me) is a transgression.

Well, just asking for something aint never hurt nobody. She was free to refuse and dump him if his requests became too uncomfortable.

actually, we don't know if she was "free" to refuse.

Apart from the night in question and even then, only if she indeed was incapacitated, she was always free to refuse. What makes you think otherwise?

ESOMKnicks wrote:

mreinman wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

mreinman wrote:
pushing your girl really hard to have your nasty boys included in itself (to me) is a transgression.

Well, just asking for something aint never hurt nobody. She was free to refuse and dump him if his requests became too uncomfortable.

actually, we don't know if she was "free" to refuse.

Apart from the night in question and even then, only if she indeed was incapacitated, she was always free to refuse. What makes you think otherwise?

The text messages, there's a precedent. Every single time Rose had proposed Group Sex, she had blatantly turned him down. Every. Single. Time. It was only the Night of that she wanted him over, just Rose, not the 2 other dudes. Look at the reports and articles, she was sleeping already and had puked and passed out, Rose tried calling her, no answer. Rose friend tried texting/calling, no answer. They made their way into the bedroom, and that's when the disgusting act led by Rose happened.

ESOMKnicks wrote:

mreinman wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

mreinman wrote:
pushing your girl really hard to have your nasty boys included in itself (to me) is a transgression.

Well, just asking for something aint never hurt nobody. She was free to refuse and dump him if his requests became too uncomfortable.

actually, we don't know if she was "free" to refuse.

Apart from the night in question and even then, only if she indeed was incapacitated, she was always free to refuse. What makes you think otherwise?

ESOMKnicks wrote:

mreinman wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

mreinman wrote:
pushing your girl really hard to have your nasty boys included in itself (to me) is a transgression.

Well, just asking for something aint never hurt nobody. She was free to refuse and dump him if his requests became too uncomfortable.

actually, we don't know if she was "free" to refuse.

Apart from the night in question and even then, only if she indeed was incapacitated, she was always free to refuse. What makes you think otherwise?

I am talking about the night in question.

I do believe that men should never pressure woman to let a guys friends be included in the romp. Ask once, maybe but never should there be any psychological pressure. Not everyone has the strength that they would need to hold strong, especially that women can often be in a weaker position.

ChuckBuck wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

mreinman wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

mreinman wrote:
pushing your girl really hard to have your nasty boys included in itself (to me) is a transgression.

Well, just asking for something aint never hurt nobody. She was free to refuse and dump him if his requests became too uncomfortable.

actually, we don't know if she was "free" to refuse.

Apart from the night in question and even then, only if she indeed was incapacitated, she was always free to refuse. What makes you think otherwise?

The text messages, there's a precedent. Every single time Rose had proposed Group Sex, she had blatantly turned him down. Every. Single. Time. It was only the Night of that she wanted him over, just Rose, not the 2 other dudes. Look at the reports and articles, she was sleeping already and had puked and passed out, Rose tried calling her, no answer. Rose friend tried texting/calling, no answer. They made their way into the bedroom, and that's when the disgusting act led by Rose happened.

ChuckBuck wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

mreinman wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

mreinman wrote:
pushing your girl really hard to have your nasty boys included in itself (to me) is a transgression.

Well, just asking for something aint never hurt nobody. She was free to refuse and dump him if his requests became too uncomfortable.

actually, we don't know if she was "free" to refuse.

Apart from the night in question and even then, only if she indeed was incapacitated, she was always free to refuse. What makes you think otherwise?

The text messages, there's a precedent. Every single time Rose had proposed Group Sex, she had blatantly turned him down. Every. Single. Time. It was only the Night of that she wanted him over, just Rose, not the 2 other dudes. Look at the reports and articles, she was sleeping already and had puked and passed out, Rose tried calling her, no answer. Rose friend tried texting/calling, no answer. They made their way into the bedroom, and that's when the disgusting act led by Rose happened.

Welpee wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

mreinman wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

mreinman wrote:
pushing your girl really hard to have your nasty boys included in itself (to me) is a transgression.

Well, just asking for something aint never hurt nobody. She was free to refuse and dump him if his requests became too uncomfortable.

actually, we don't know if she was "free" to refuse.

Apart from the night in question and even then, only if she indeed was incapacitated, she was always free to refuse. What makes you think otherwise?

The text messages, there's a precedent. Every single time Rose had proposed Group Sex, she had blatantly turned him down. Every. Single. Time. It was only the Night of that she wanted him over, just Rose, not the 2 other dudes. Look at the reports and articles, she was sleeping already and had puked and passed out, Rose tried calling her, no answer. Rose friend tried texting/calling, no answer. They made their way into the bedroom, and that's when the disgusting act led by Rose happened.

Again, remember this is her account.

No. Look at the text messages, it's in stone. There's precedent. She denied him group sex every single time Rose proposed it, stating she was uncomfortable with the whole idea.

Drinking a few dozen Patron shots doesn't make it consent.

Welpee wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

mreinman wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

mreinman wrote:
pushing your girl really hard to have your nasty boys included in itself (to me) is a transgression.

Well, just asking for something aint never hurt nobody. She was free to refuse and dump him if his requests became too uncomfortable.

actually, we don't know if she was "free" to refuse.

Apart from the night in question and even then, only if she indeed was incapacitated, she was always free to refuse. What makes you think otherwise?

The text messages, there's a precedent. Every single time Rose had proposed Group Sex, she had blatantly turned him down. Every. Single. Time. It was only the Night of that she wanted him over, just Rose, not the 2 other dudes. Look at the reports and articles, she was sleeping already and had puked and passed out, Rose tried calling her, no answer. Rose friend tried texting/calling, no answer. They made their way into the bedroom, and that's when the disgusting act led by Rose happened.

And yet she contacted Rose hours afterwards and doesn't mention anything about it?

They were in a on again/off again relationship. She wanted clarity from someone she thought she could trust after 2 years.

Apparently, not.

ChuckBuck wrote:

Welpee wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

mreinman wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

mreinman wrote:
pushing your girl really hard to have your nasty boys included in itself (to me) is a transgression.

Well, just asking for something aint never hurt nobody. She was free to refuse and dump him if his requests became too uncomfortable.

actually, we don't know if she was "free" to refuse.

Apart from the night in question and even then, only if she indeed was incapacitated, she was always free to refuse. What makes you think otherwise?

The text messages, there's a precedent. Every single time Rose had proposed Group Sex, she had blatantly turned him down. Every. Single. Time. It was only the Night of that she wanted him over, just Rose, not the 2 other dudes. Look at the reports and articles, she was sleeping already and had puked and passed out, Rose tried calling her, no answer. Rose friend tried texting/calling, no answer. They made their way into the bedroom, and that's when the disgusting act led by Rose happened.

Again, remember this is her account.

No. Look at the text messages, it's in stone. There's precedent. She denied him group sex every single time Rose proposed it, stating she was uncomfortable with the whole idea.

Drinking a few dozen Patron shots doesn't make it consent.

ChuckBuck wrote:

Welpee wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

mreinman wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

mreinman wrote:
pushing your girl really hard to have your nasty boys included in itself (to me) is a transgression.

Well, just asking for something aint never hurt nobody. She was free to refuse and dump him if his requests became too uncomfortable.

actually, we don't know if she was "free" to refuse.

Apart from the night in question and even then, only if she indeed was incapacitated, she was always free to refuse. What makes you think otherwise?

The text messages, there's a precedent. Every single time Rose had proposed Group Sex, she had blatantly turned him down. Every. Single. Time. It was only the Night of that she wanted him over, just Rose, not the 2 other dudes. Look at the reports and articles, she was sleeping already and had puked and passed out, Rose tried calling her, no answer. Rose friend tried texting/calling, no answer. They made their way into the bedroom, and that's when the disgusting act led by Rose happened.

And yet she contacted Rose hours afterwards and doesn't mention anything about it?

They were in a on again/off again relationship. She wanted clarity from someone she thought she could trust after 2 years.

Apparently, not.

The woman hopes that by winning her case and maintaining her anonymity, she can empower other women.

"I want to share my story so women can know that they are able to come forward and remain anonymous and not to have to have the burden or the worry that their loved ones will find out," she said.

And she was so horrified by what happened that it took her TWO WHOLE YEARS to file a police report. AFTER she filed her lawsuit. AFTER it was confirmed she wasn't getting paid by Rose to be quiet. Which is why it's not a criminal case. And she wants other women to be empowered by the fact she's suing for $21 million dollars, anonymously. So it's been TWO YEARS and her family has no idea she was on again off again with Derek Rose?

And people who pride themselves on high IQ, discriminating realism and their own professionalism are buying into this.

Again, is Rose to be admired for this? No, not at all. Should he have to bear the damage to his endorsements, his credibility? Sure enough. But we lived through the derangement that was JR Smith. And that episode included a lot heavier baggage than this. Unless you happen to think unsubstantiated rape is worse than negligence that ends in death.

Rose is being sued two years later based on heresay. By a law student. Interesting.

Double standard, indeed.

jrodmc wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Welpee wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

mreinman wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

mreinman wrote:
pushing your girl really hard to have your nasty boys included in itself (to me) is a transgression.

Well, just asking for something aint never hurt nobody. She was free to refuse and dump him if his requests became too uncomfortable.

actually, we don't know if she was "free" to refuse.

Apart from the night in question and even then, only if she indeed was incapacitated, she was always free to refuse. What makes you think otherwise?

The text messages, there's a precedent. Every single time Rose had proposed Group Sex, she had blatantly turned him down. Every. Single. Time. It was only the Night of that she wanted him over, just Rose, not the 2 other dudes. Look at the reports and articles, she was sleeping already and had puked and passed out, Rose tried calling her, no answer. Rose friend tried texting/calling, no answer. They made their way into the bedroom, and that's when the disgusting act led by Rose happened.

And yet she contacted Rose hours afterwards and doesn't mention anything about it?

They were in a on again/off again relationship. She wanted clarity from someone she thought she could trust after 2 years.

Apparently, not.

"They already have very traditional cultural expectations of me," she said.

The woman hopes that by winning her case and maintaining her anonymity, she can empower other women.

"I want to share my story so women can know that they are able to come forward and remain anonymous and not to have to have the burden or the worry that their loved ones will find out," she said.

And she was so horrified by what happened that it took her TWO WHOLE YEARS to file a police report. AFTER she filed her lawsuit. AFTER it was confirmed she wasn't getting paid by Rose to be quiet. Which is why it's not a criminal case. And she wants other women to be empowered by the fact she's suing for $21 million dollars, anonymously. So it's been TWO YEARS and her family has no idea she was on again off again with Derek Rose?

And people who pride themselves on high IQ, discriminating realism and their own professionalism are buying into this.

Again, is Rose to be admired for this? No, not at all. Should he have to bear the damage to his endorsements, his credibility? Sure enough. But we lived through the derangement that was JR Smith. And that episode included a lot heavier baggage than this. Unless you happen to think unsubstantiated rape is worse than negligence that ends in death.

Rose is being sued two years later based on heresay. By a law student. Interesting.

Double standard, indeed.

So those 80 women that filed suits against Bill Cosby should just remain silent even though it's way past statute of limitations.

That's basically what you're saying. If they don't call 911, file a complaint, tell their Mama and Papa in a timely manner...shiet they just gold diggas!!! ALL of 'em!

Trauma, Shame, Psychological damage...nah, that shiet is all made up.

Welpee wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Welpee wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

mreinman wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

mreinman wrote:
pushing your girl really hard to have your nasty boys included in itself (to me) is a transgression.

Well, just asking for something aint never hurt nobody. She was free to refuse and dump him if his requests became too uncomfortable.

actually, we don't know if she was "free" to refuse.

Apart from the night in question and even then, only if she indeed was incapacitated, she was always free to refuse. What makes you think otherwise?

The text messages, there's a precedent. Every single time Rose had proposed Group Sex, she had blatantly turned him down. Every. Single. Time. It was only the Night of that she wanted him over, just Rose, not the 2 other dudes. Look at the reports and articles, she was sleeping already and had puked and passed out, Rose tried calling her, no answer. Rose friend tried texting/calling, no answer. They made their way into the bedroom, and that's when the disgusting act led by Rose happened.

Again, remember this is her account.

No. Look at the text messages, it's in stone. There's precedent. She denied him group sex every single time Rose proposed it, stating she was uncomfortable with the whole idea.

Drinking a few dozen Patron shots doesn't make it consent.

Not denying that she previously refused. But that doesn't mean she didn't consent to it later. Look, nobody is claiming Rose is a saint. But you can't just automatically give the woman the benefit of the doubt just because she's a woman. There are a lot of shady athletes AND women out there.

why would she all of a sudden consent when she had a history of not consenting? you give her the benefit of the doubt because there is a clear history of not consenting. if she all of a sudden consents then you are assuming she was desperate to hang on to the relationship which is kind of in line with rose's team doing character assassination.

dk7th wrote:

Welpee wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Welpee wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

mreinman wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

mreinman wrote:
pushing your girl really hard to have your nasty boys included in itself (to me) is a transgression.

Well, just asking for something aint never hurt nobody. She was free to refuse and dump him if his requests became too uncomfortable.

actually, we don't know if she was "free" to refuse.

Apart from the night in question and even then, only if she indeed was incapacitated, she was always free to refuse. What makes you think otherwise?

The text messages, there's a precedent. Every single time Rose had proposed Group Sex, she had blatantly turned him down. Every. Single. Time. It was only the Night of that she wanted him over, just Rose, not the 2 other dudes. Look at the reports and articles, she was sleeping already and had puked and passed out, Rose tried calling her, no answer. Rose friend tried texting/calling, no answer. They made their way into the bedroom, and that's when the disgusting act led by Rose happened.

Again, remember this is her account.

No. Look at the text messages, it's in stone. There's precedent. She denied him group sex every single time Rose proposed it, stating she was uncomfortable with the whole idea.

Drinking a few dozen Patron shots doesn't make it consent.

Not denying that she previously refused. But that doesn't mean she didn't consent to it later. Look, nobody is claiming Rose is a saint. But you can't just automatically give the woman the benefit of the doubt just because she's a woman. There are a lot of shady athletes AND women out there.

why would she all of a sudden consent when she had a history of not consenting? you give her the benefit of the doubt because there is a clear history of not consenting. if she all of a sudden consents then you are assuming she was desperate to hang on to the relationship which is kind of in line with rose's team doing character assassination.

and IF she consented, how drunk or drugged does one have to be that they are off limits and there is no such thing as consent in such a state?

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Welpee wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Welpee wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

mreinman wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

mreinman wrote:
pushing your girl really hard to have your nasty boys included in itself (to me) is a transgression.

Well, just asking for something aint never hurt nobody. She was free to refuse and dump him if his requests became too uncomfortable.

actually, we don't know if she was "free" to refuse.

Apart from the night in question and even then, only if she indeed was incapacitated, she was always free to refuse. What makes you think otherwise?

The text messages, there's a precedent. Every single time Rose had proposed Group Sex, she had blatantly turned him down. Every. Single. Time. It was only the Night of that she wanted him over, just Rose, not the 2 other dudes. Look at the reports and articles, she was sleeping already and had puked and passed out, Rose tried calling her, no answer. Rose friend tried texting/calling, no answer. They made their way into the bedroom, and that's when the disgusting act led by Rose happened.

Again, remember this is her account.

No. Look at the text messages, it's in stone. There's precedent. She denied him group sex every single time Rose proposed it, stating she was uncomfortable with the whole idea.

Drinking a few dozen Patron shots doesn't make it consent.

Not denying that she previously refused. But that doesn't mean she didn't consent to it later. Look, nobody is claiming Rose is a saint. But you can't just automatically give the woman the benefit of the doubt just because she's a woman. There are a lot of shady athletes AND women out there.

why would she all of a sudden consent when she had a history of not consenting? you give her the benefit of the doubt because there is a clear history of not consenting. if she all of a sudden consents then you are assuming she was desperate to hang on to the relationship which is kind of in line with rose's team doing character assassination.

and IF she consented, how drunk or drugged does one have to be that they are off limits and there is no such thing as consent in such a state?

Welpee wrote:

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Welpee wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Welpee wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

mreinman wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

mreinman wrote:
pushing your girl really hard to have your nasty boys included in itself (to me) is a transgression.

Well, just asking for something aint never hurt nobody. She was free to refuse and dump him if his requests became too uncomfortable.

actually, we don't know if she was "free" to refuse.

Apart from the night in question and even then, only if she indeed was incapacitated, she was always free to refuse. What makes you think otherwise?

The text messages, there's a precedent. Every single time Rose had proposed Group Sex, she had blatantly turned him down. Every. Single. Time. It was only the Night of that she wanted him over, just Rose, not the 2 other dudes. Look at the reports and articles, she was sleeping already and had puked and passed out, Rose tried calling her, no answer. Rose friend tried texting/calling, no answer. They made their way into the bedroom, and that's when the disgusting act led by Rose happened.

Again, remember this is her account.

No. Look at the text messages, it's in stone. There's precedent. She denied him group sex every single time Rose proposed it, stating she was uncomfortable with the whole idea.

Drinking a few dozen Patron shots doesn't make it consent.

Not denying that she previously refused. But that doesn't mean she didn't consent to it later. Look, nobody is claiming Rose is a saint. But you can't just automatically give the woman the benefit of the doubt just because she's a woman. There are a lot of shady athletes AND women out there.

why would she all of a sudden consent when she had a history of not consenting? you give her the benefit of the doubt because there is a clear history of not consenting. if she all of a sudden consents then you are assuming she was desperate to hang on to the relationship which is kind of in line with rose's team doing character assassination.

and IF she consented, how drunk or drugged does one have to be that they are off limits and there is no such thing as consent in such a state?

And how does one determine if a person is too intoxicated to give consent? Obviously if you're passed out drunk that's one thing. If a guy and a girl have been drinking and she's laughing and joking and being flirty, how does a guy determine she's too drunk to give consent? Tricky area.

the jury's criteria will be her believability compared to his. hence the bar is pretty low: if she seems believable then a juror votes in her favor. given her history of saying no to group sex, a juror will likely find it difficult to not believe her.

Welpee wrote:

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Welpee wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Welpee wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

mreinman wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

mreinman wrote:
pushing your girl really hard to have your nasty boys included in itself (to me) is a transgression.

Well, just asking for something aint never hurt nobody. She was free to refuse and dump him if his requests became too uncomfortable.

actually, we don't know if she was "free" to refuse.

Apart from the night in question and even then, only if she indeed was incapacitated, she was always free to refuse. What makes you think otherwise?

The text messages, there's a precedent. Every single time Rose had proposed Group Sex, she had blatantly turned him down. Every. Single. Time. It was only the Night of that she wanted him over, just Rose, not the 2 other dudes. Look at the reports and articles, she was sleeping already and had puked and passed out, Rose tried calling her, no answer. Rose friend tried texting/calling, no answer. They made their way into the bedroom, and that's when the disgusting act led by Rose happened.

Again, remember this is her account.

No. Look at the text messages, it's in stone. There's precedent. She denied him group sex every single time Rose proposed it, stating she was uncomfortable with the whole idea.

Drinking a few dozen Patron shots doesn't make it consent.

Not denying that she previously refused. But that doesn't mean she didn't consent to it later. Look, nobody is claiming Rose is a saint. But you can't just automatically give the woman the benefit of the doubt just because she's a woman. There are a lot of shady athletes AND women out there.

why would she all of a sudden consent when she had a history of not consenting? you give her the benefit of the doubt because there is a clear history of not consenting. if she all of a sudden consents then you are assuming she was desperate to hang on to the relationship which is kind of in line with rose's team doing character assassination.

and IF she consented, how drunk or drugged does one have to be that they are off limits and there is no such thing as consent in such a state?

And how does one determine if a person is too intoxicated to give consent? Obviously if you're passed out drunk that's one thing. If a guy and a girl have been drinking and she's laughing and joking and being flirty, how does a guy determine she's too drunk to give consent? Tricky area.

Uhm, if you been waiting outside a chick's home at 3AM, know she been drinking, and you been blowing up her phone for an hour without a single answer, maybe it's a good time to turn around amirite?

The evidence shows that Plaintiff was unconscious when Defendants arrived to her apartment in the early morning hours of August 27, 2013, and that she did not respond to texts or calls from Defendants Rose and Allen:
2:05 AM Call from Defendant Allen to Plaintiff Unanswered
2:12 AM Call from Defendant Allen to Plaintiff Unanswered
2:27 AM Text from Defendant Rose to Plaintiff “Hello?”
2:29 AM Call from Defendant Allen to Plaintiff Unanswered
2:49 AM Call from Defendant Allen to Plaintiff Unanswered
2:50 AM Text from Defendant Allen to Plaintiff “We outside”
2:50 AM Call from Defendant Allen to Plaintiff Unanswered
2:51 AM Call from Defendant Allen to Plaintiff Unanswered
2:52 AM Call from Defendant Allen to Plaintiff Unanswered
2:52 AM Text from Defendant Allen to Plaintiff “Wake yo ass up”
2:53 AM Call from Defendant Allen to Plaintiff Unanswered

ChuckBuck wrote:

martin wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:There seems to be a hideous double standard here. Athletes are expected to be "morally reprehensible people", that's what I can gather reading these last few pages, and any woman attempting to have a relationship with said athlete know going in that's what is to be expected. Just spread your legs and be a loose whore, you asked for it!

This is not accurate. Go back and read and then respond to the exact posts that you think illustrate your point. Otherwise it's just your incorrect assumption or worse.

redacted wrote:
Jane Doe should've known better. She clearly knew Rose was that kind of guy cuz he had shown it the entire relationship. This could be a problem for her with the jury.

redacted wrote:

It's definitely obvious she seeks money primarily.

redacted wrote:
Or..."I really want to be with this guy who seems to be luke warm towards me and drifting away. So yeah, I'll agree to give in to his fantasy (after I got drunk) because I think that's the only way to keep him (and his money) in my life." Then she sobers up, thinks about what she did, has regrets and shame, wants him to pay for the mistake she agree to while under the influence (though still conscious).

redacted wrote:

Rose has to pay to play,and he will pay up, but I know in my heart she's not a saint in this, and he must feel so too, or he would have been gave her hush money. Or maybe she didn't want to go that route and then be charge with extortion, IDK, but there is always 2 sides to the story.

Yeah I don't know what this is or where it is being quote from. Do better.

ChuckBuck wrote:

Welpee wrote:

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Welpee wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Welpee wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

mreinman wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

mreinman wrote:
pushing your girl really hard to have your nasty boys included in itself (to me) is a transgression.

Well, just asking for something aint never hurt nobody. She was free to refuse and dump him if his requests became too uncomfortable.

actually, we don't know if she was "free" to refuse.

Apart from the night in question and even then, only if she indeed was incapacitated, she was always free to refuse. What makes you think otherwise?

The text messages, there's a precedent. Every single time Rose had proposed Group Sex, she had blatantly turned him down. Every. Single. Time. It was only the Night of that she wanted him over, just Rose, not the 2 other dudes. Look at the reports and articles, she was sleeping already and had puked and passed out, Rose tried calling her, no answer. Rose friend tried texting/calling, no answer. They made their way into the bedroom, and that's when the disgusting act led by Rose happened.

Again, remember this is her account.

No. Look at the text messages, it's in stone. There's precedent. She denied him group sex every single time Rose proposed it, stating she was uncomfortable with the whole idea.

Drinking a few dozen Patron shots doesn't make it consent.

Not denying that she previously refused. But that doesn't mean she didn't consent to it later. Look, nobody is claiming Rose is a saint. But you can't just automatically give the woman the benefit of the doubt just because she's a woman. There are a lot of shady athletes AND women out there.

why would she all of a sudden consent when she had a history of not consenting? you give her the benefit of the doubt because there is a clear history of not consenting. if she all of a sudden consents then you are assuming she was desperate to hang on to the relationship which is kind of in line with rose's team doing character assassination.

and IF she consented, how drunk or drugged does one have to be that they are off limits and there is no such thing as consent in such a state?

And how does one determine if a person is too intoxicated to give consent? Obviously if you're passed out drunk that's one thing. If a guy and a girl have been drinking and she's laughing and joking and being flirty, how does a guy determine she's too drunk to give consent? Tricky area.

Uhm, if you been waiting outside a chick's home at 3AM, know she been drinking, and you been blowing up her phone for an hour without a single answer, maybe it's a good time to turn around amirite?

The evidence shows that Plaintiff was unconscious when Defendants arrived to her apartment in the early morning hours of August 27, 2013, and that she did not respond to texts or calls from Defendants Rose and Allen:
2:05 AM Call from Defendant Allen to Plaintiff Unanswered
2:12 AM Call from Defendant Allen to Plaintiff Unanswered
2:27 AM Text from Defendant Rose to Plaintiff “Hello?”
2:29 AM Call from Defendant Allen to Plaintiff Unanswered
2:49 AM Call from Defendant Allen to Plaintiff Unanswered
2:50 AM Text from Defendant Allen to Plaintiff “We outside”
2:50 AM Call from Defendant Allen to Plaintiff Unanswered
2:51 AM Call from Defendant Allen to Plaintiff Unanswered
2:52 AM Call from Defendant Allen to Plaintiff Unanswered
2:52 AM Text from Defendant Allen to Plaintiff “Wake yo ass up”
2:53 AM Call from Defendant Allen to Plaintiff Unanswered

martin wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

martin wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:There seems to be a hideous double standard here. Athletes are expected to be "morally reprehensible people", that's what I can gather reading these last few pages, and any woman attempting to have a relationship with said athlete know going in that's what is to be expected. Just spread your legs and be a loose whore, you asked for it!

This is not accurate. Go back and read and then respond to the exact posts that you think illustrate your point. Otherwise it's just your incorrect assumption or worse.

redacted wrote:
Jane Doe should've known better. She clearly knew Rose was that kind of guy cuz he had shown it the entire relationship. This could be a problem for her with the jury.

redacted wrote:

It's definitely obvious she seeks money primarily.

redacted wrote:
Or..."I really want to be with this guy who seems to be luke warm towards me and drifting away. So yeah, I'll agree to give in to his fantasy (after I got drunk) because I think that's the only way to keep him (and his money) in my life." Then she sobers up, thinks about what she did, has regrets and shame, wants him to pay for the mistake she agree to while under the influence (though still conscious).

redacted wrote:

Rose has to pay to play,and he will pay up, but I know in my heart she's not a saint in this, and he must feel so too, or he would have been gave her hush money. Or maybe she didn't want to go that route and then be charge with extortion, IDK, but there is always 2 sides to the story.

Yeah I don't know what this is or where it is being quote from. Do better.

?

This is all quoted from posters in previous pages???

I know this an ultimateknicks "pure love" fan site. But it's time to separate Derrick Rose as a member of our beloved favorite basketball team, and the Derrick Rose the defendant that's on a civil trial for gang rape.

You can separate the two. It's unfortunate some are using the Knick's fan "shield" from objectively calling a person that done a terrible thing a piece of shyt.