Harry Paton

[Joe MacCarthy]

9 minutes ago, Obinna said:

Why? If he is innocent why would the CSA be finished with him? Optics?

In less partisan or "normal" thinking times I would agree with you, unfortunately I don't think that is the case at this time.  JMO

[VinceA]

4 minutes ago, Bison44 said:

Just to refresh my memory, but didnt Will Johnson play for us after his domestic disturbance problems??

He did although there were no charges brought and if I remember correctly the wife declined to press anything further.

[El Diego]

49 minutes ago, SoCalTransport said:

I’m not saying he’s innocent, but you’re eliminating due process by assuming he’s guilty. I think that is a major problem with society now. There are only two people who actually know the truth.

I never said I assume he's guilty. I have no power to eliminate due process. I even said that many of the things he is accused of don't seem illegal/actionable. In a post that reproduced the accusations against Paton, I simply mentioned the most serious accusation which, for whatever reason, was originally omitted. I have not made a single moral judgment against Paton.

To be perfectly honest, I don't even know if this is a civil or criminal matter (I would guess civil just based on what I've read in this thread but idk). Is this something you have considered? Do you understand the difference in burden of proof between them?

[SoCalTransport]

1 hour ago, InglewoodJack said:

This is a mediocre player on a mediocre team in a mediocre league. What's she gonna take him to court for, his bus pass?

I agree with you, but I’m sure these players are local celebrities in the community they play in. I don’t know a ton about Scotland, I’ve been there a few times, but a place with the name Dingwall, doesn’t have a lot going for it 😜

[Pottsy3]

1 hour ago, SoCalTransport said:

It’s not always about money, I’ve dated some crazy and unreasonable women over the years 😇

From experience, the dudes calling their exes crazy often tend to be the head cases themselves.

2 hours ago, SoCalTransport said:

I think you’re being unfair, he’s innocent till proven guilty. A lot of scorned lovers out there for athletes. 

This last part is dangerously exaggerated. Truth is, the burden of proof required to convict an assailant in a sexual assault case is very difficult to achieve. Let’s not pretend the Deshaun Watson’s of this world are targets because there wasn’t enough to convict them in a criminal court. 
 

 

at the end of the day, we’ll see how this plays out but it’s pretty telling of wider issues when we presume innocence of the accused until the roles are reversed.

Edited June 23, 2022 by Pottsy3

[Obinna]

4 minutes ago, Pottsy3 said:

This last part is dangerously exaggerated. Truth is, the burden of proof required to convict an assailant in a sexual assault case is very difficult to achieve. Let’s not pretend the Deshaun Watson’s of this world are targets because there wasn’t enough to convict them in a criminal court. 

Not sure who Deshaun Watson is, but the burden of proof required to convict anyone of anything should be difficult to achieve, shouldn't it? Otherwise you run the risk of false convictions. Not to minimize the impact of assailants wrongfully getting let off the hook, which undoubtedly happens, but it would be terrifying to be wrongfully convicted for something you weren't guilty of, wouldn't it. The scary thing is that in both cases you're at the mercy of the skill of your legal council. 

[Pottsy3]

1 minute ago, Obinna said:

Not sure who Deshaun Watson is, but the burden of proof required to convict anyone of anything should be difficult to achieve, shouldn't it? Otherwise you run the risk of false convictions. Not to minimize the impact of assailants wrongfully getting let off the hook, which undoubtedly happens, but it would be terrifying to be wrongfully convicted for something you weren't guilty of, wouldn't it. The scary thing is that in both cases you're at the mercy of the skill of your legal council. 

False convictions and actual assaults are both bad. But the prevalence of “false reporting” is significantly exaggerated and we as society tend to take the side of convenience (in this case, a player for our team). 
 

My whole point being, cases are nuanced and criminally innocent ≠ at no fault.

[SoCalTransport]

4 minutes ago, Pottsy3 said:

False convictions and actual assaults are both bad. But the prevalence of “false reporting” is significantly exaggerated and we as society tend to take the side of convenience (in this case, a player for our team). 
 

My whole point being, cases are nuanced and criminally innocent ≠ at no fault.

I think you’re missing the point I’m trying to make, all I was saying is that he should be given due process, a lot of men have been taken down without having the opportunity to defend themselves. It’s a problem that goes beyond just sports and entertainment.

[Obinna]

19 minutes ago, Pottsy3 said:

False convictions and actual assaults are both bad. But the prevalence of “false reporting” is significantly exaggerated and we as society tend to take the side of convenience (in this case, a player for our team). 
 

My whole point being, cases are nuanced and criminally innocent ≠ at no fault.

I agree with you on that, but I don't know about the false reporting being exaggerated, or society taking the side of convenience. To me that just seems to depend on what your view is.

For example, my view, which seems to be different than yours, is that we actually live in a society where there's social pressure to side with the alleged victim these cases, so I hesitated to "take the side of our player", knowing that doing so would result in push back (which is what our exchange feels like).

Actually, I am not even taking the side of our player on this one, I am taking the side of due process, because truthfully I don't know if he's guilty or innocent. Therefore, I am not even taking his side, even though I feel you or others may interpret that I am, which speaks to the point I am making.

But I do agree about the nuance and that criminally innocence may or may not mean no fault (depending on what you mean by no fault, I guess).

Edited June 23, 2022 by Obinna

[InglewoodJack]

1 hour ago, SoCalTransport said:

I agree with you, but I’m sure these players are local celebrities in the community they play in. I don’t know a ton about Scotland, I’ve been there a few times, but a place with the name Dingwall, doesn’t have a lot going for it 😜

Funny enough one of my buddies lives in Aberdeen, and his club isn’t even Aberdeen, it’s some local 3rd division club, and him and his buddies are all diehards, so it does seem like there’s nothing to do up there. That said, if someone wants to “set someone up” perhaps they shouldn’t focus on a mediocre soccer player and set their sights on something bigger, like the local milkman or the bank manager, as both of them are definitely more well off and just as popular as Harry Patton

[InglewoodJack]

55 minutes ago, Obinna said:

Not sure who Deshaun Watson is, but the burden of proof required to convict anyone of anything should be difficult to achieve, shouldn't it? Otherwise you run the risk of false convictions. Not to minimize the impact of assailants wrongfully getting let off the hook, which undoubtedly happens, but it would be terrifying to be wrongfully convicted for something you weren't guilty of, wouldn't it. The scary thing is that in both cases you're at the mercy of the skill of your legal council. 

In the case of Deshaun Watson, one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL, he's been accused of sexual assault from I believe 24 women, and it's heavily implied that he's hurt so many more women, but his being an NFL quarterback, you obviously face major obstacles in getting any sort of justice considering the resources he has at his disposal. And because he has cast enough "doubt" on the story (ie he's a millionaire celebrity, these women want a paycheck, etc.), he was able to sign an insanely massive contract with Cleveland while the NFL is supposedly still investigating the charges, and I believe more women have come out between him signing the new deal and now. And many of those women have proof via text, people to collaborate their stories, etc., but the reality is no one is going to believe you unless you have Mason Greenwood type proof, ie you successfully recorded your assault taking place.

The fact that this case has made it to court is remarkable for sexual assault.Law enforcement is famous for trying to convince women to not press charges because maybe she's a whore, maybe it was her fault, they'll have to revisit every traumatic detail in court, so on. So for her to go to the law, them to say you've got a case, for that case to actually make it to court and for the accused to actually need to stand in court, that carries a lot of weight. This isn't a case of someone making an Instagram post saying her ex hurt her, this is someone who jumped through the hoops thrown at them by the law, and they've gotten to this point.

 

That's why this whole innocent until proven guilty argument in cases like this stinks to me, because on one hand, you've got the courts of scotland taking this seriously enough to pursue, and on the other hand you've got people on an internet forum being like "actually she's lying. trust me bro.".

 

Someone also made the argument that well, look at johnny depp and amber heard! women lie! Excellent point- amber heard actually won her libel suit in English court which views libel very similar to how scottish courts do, so she would've won that case in Scotland too.

[Shway]

@Pottsy3mentioning Deshaun Watson kinda goes with @SoCalTransport point.

I’m not defending him, or anyone….but once you  are willing to $ettle out of court in these matters, immediately sends a different message. 20 out of the 24 have currently took money for their pain and suffering. 

Edited June 23, 2022 by Shway

[Pottsy3]

2 minutes ago, Shway said:

@Pottsy3mentioning Deshaun Watson kinda goes with @SoCalTransport point.

I’m not defending him, or anyone….but once you  are willing to $ettle out of court in these matters, immediately sends a different message. 20 out of the 24 have currently took money for their pain and suffering. 

I’m not really sure how someone going from pleading innocence in the media to financially compensating his accusers days later is proving any points.
 

To me, that just shows me that he knows he is at fault (and would be proved so civilly) but with not enough evidence for a criminal case to condemn him. Criminal convictions are a rarity in cases of sexual assault, but that’s not to say that assaults do not happen often. 

it’s the same reason the NFL is expected to suspend him still. Not criminally at fault ≠ not at fault.

[SoCalTransport]

34 minutes ago, InglewoodJack said:

Funny enough one of my buddies lives in Aberdeen, and his club isn’t even Aberdeen, it’s some local 3rd division club, and him and his buddies are all diehards, so it does seem like there’s nothing to do up there. That said, if someone wants to “set someone up” perhaps they shouldn’t focus on a mediocre soccer player and set their sights on something bigger, like the local milkman or the bank manager, as both of them are definitely more well off and just as popular as Harry Patton

You have to remember we’re not dealing with Mensa personalities here. I know a woman is more looking at potential earnings, and a soccer player has a way higher roof than a milkman, and is also probably better looking. She has probably has no idea what his actual ability is. As I said before dating a foreign soccer player is pretty exciting for a woman from Dingwall. 

[GasPed]

2 minutes ago, InglewoodJack said:

That's why this whole innocent until proven guilty argument in cases like this stinks to me, because on one hand, you've got the courts of scotland taking this seriously enough to pursue, and on the other hand you've got people on an internet forum being like "actually she's lying. trust me bro.".

Not sure why you don't like innocent until proven guilty - guilty until proven innocent has just as many (if not more) drawbacks.   (And as we've seen, "Believe all women" is just as logically imprudent as "Believe all men".) 

 

[InglewoodJack]

12 minutes ago, SoCalTransport said:

You have to remember we’re not dealing with Mensa personalities here. I know a woman is more looking at potential earnings, and a soccer player has a way higher roof than a milkman, and is also probably better looking. She has probably has no idea what his actual ability is. As I said before dating a foreign soccer player is pretty exciting for a woman from Dingwall. 

Well, you'd have to be quite the nonce to think that Harry Patton will ever earn enough money for this to be worth it for you, but also, look at it from the other side: the population of Dingwall is 5,300. That's the size of a town where everyone knows each other, and likely few people ever actually leave. Having gone through the legal system to get to this point, if this is a fabrication, every single person in this tiny little village will know exactly what happened, and this woman would have her reputation absolutely destroyed. Not to mention, if soccer is the only exciting thing in Dingwall, that means that there are a large number of soccer fans who would probably harass this woman forever- you know how defensive people get over athletes. None of this seems remotely worth it if she's doing this for personal gain, which is a big reason why that argument makes no sense to me.

[InglewoodJack]

29 minutes ago, Pottsy3 said:

I’m not really sure how someone going from pleading innocence in the media to financially compensating his accusers days later is proving any points.
 

To me, that just shows me that he knows he is at fault (and would be proved so civilly) but with not enough evidence for a criminal case to condemn him. Criminal convictions are a rarity in cases of sexual assault, but that’s not to say that assaults do not happen often. 

it’s the same reason the NFL is expected to suspend him still. Not criminally at fault ≠ not at fault.

There are no crazier people in the world than NFL fans. If someone assaulted you and then your offer is, we can bring this to trial where I, an NFL quarterback will have a legal team 10x the size of yours who will drag you through the mud until you're publicly despised, OR, have this $100,000 check and move on with your life, a lot of people will take the payout.

It's like copping a plea deal- so many innocent people do this, because agreeing to do 2 years for a crime you didn't commit may be a better offer than going to court and receiving 25 years to life for the same thing you didn't do.

[Obinna]

1 hour ago, InglewoodJack said:

That's why this whole innocent until proven guilty argument in cases like this stinks to me, because on one hand, you've got the courts of scotland taking this seriously enough to pursue, and on the other hand you've got people on an internet forum being like "actually she's lying. trust me bro.".

Nobody is saying she's lying. That's your interpretation and it demonstrates the point in my last post:

1 hour ago, Obinna said:

For example, my view, which seems to be different than yours, is that we actually live in a society where there's social pressure to side with the alleged victim these cases, so I hesitated to "take the side of our player", knowing that doing so would result in push back (which is what our exchange feels like).

What is actually being said (or trying to be said) is simply that we don't know what happened, because we don't. For me it goes no further than that, how can it? I don't know any of the people involved, and even if I did I am no investigator. Any theory supporting her case, or his, wouldn't and shouldn't hold weight. It's funny we (in a general sense) can be critical of the court system, but at the same time we can espouse theories or make cases about the likelihood he is guilty or innocent. We don't know shit, that's the truth lol.

I guess it's just a pet peeve of mine that sitting on the fence, which is the reasonable thing to do when you don't know something, translates to picking a side. 

Inglewood, I appreciate the story about the QB, and it sounds terrible, but every case is different. In fact, the only resemblance to Paton's case seems to be that both are professional athletes, but the sport is different, the profile is different, the country is different, the nature of the case is fundamentally different (multiple vs single victims), and the two men have vastly different access to resources, I presume. To be honest I don't even know why @Pottsy3 drew the comparison to be honest, considering how different the cases seem to be. 

And to bold for clarity, this is not me defending Paton. This is me taking issue with presuming guilt without evidence.

[Obinna]

1 hour ago, InglewoodJack said:

Well, you'd have to be quite the nonce to think that Harry Patton will ever earn enough money for this to be worth it for you, but also, look at it from the other side: the population of Dingwall is 5,300. That's the size of a town where everyone knows each other, and likely few people ever actually leave. Having gone through the legal system to get to this point, if this is a fabrication, every single person in this tiny little village will know exactly what happened, and this woman would have her reputation absolutely destroyed. Not to mention, if soccer is the only exciting thing in Dingwall, that means that there are a large number of soccer fans who would probably harass this woman forever- you know how defensive people get over athletes. None of this seems remotely worth it if she's doing this for personal gain, which is a big reason why that argument makes no sense to me.

I preface by saying I don't know shit, but do feel that most likely something happened and there's his story, her story and the truth. The problem or challenge is that she may see aggression where he doesn't, because we see things through our own eyes, right? I think men can definitely underestimate what it's like being a female that feels threat of physical harm. The same applies to contact, right? A woman's interpretation of physical harm may be different than a man's, which is precisely why no man should ever put themselves (and a woman) in the position by physically laying his hands on her to any degree that may be interpreted by her as being dangerous (something we can all agree on).

I just went on about how speculating on this kind of thing is kind of dumb, but I am going to speculate that it seems unlikely the alleged victim is making this up out of nowhere. But does that mean Paton is guilty to the letter of the law? I don't know, because I have no information. There's a lot of room for nuance and I suspect there's probably some grey area. I doubt Paton has high powered lawyers working for him, so that point is moot. 

All of it is regrettable no matter how we slice it. I prefer we talk about him moving on to greener pastures than Ross County so that we could instead speculate about how much of an impact he could make for a new club, and whether that can earn him a spot on the national team, but alas....

Edited June 23, 2022 by Obinna

[RS]

3 hours ago, Shway said:

@Pottsy3mentioning Deshaun Watson kinda goes with @SoCalTransport point.

I’m not defending him, or anyone….but once you  are willing to $ettle out of court in these matters, immediately sends a different message. 20 out of the 24 have currently took money for their pain and suffering. 

This work$ both way$. 

Why would an innocent man be willing to $ettle out of court?

[Shway]

10 minutes ago, RS said:

This work$ both way$. 

Why would an innocent man be willing to $ettle out of court?

Wait, what lol…I agree, but that’s not the point.

Deshaun Watson was brought up. Tbh I don’t know why, as it’s not even comparable. So I made mention of his situation. 

Point is, money changes everything, if a mere man couldn’t simply pay the asking price for his wrong doings, they wouldn’t want him to be free and would demand jail. Sadly your wealth determines your freedom as long as the FBI/CSIS doesn’t get involved. 

Thi$ happen$ all the time. 
There’s the law, and then there’s a price.

As for Harry, all I was saying is I won’t condemn or slander the man for allegations brought up against him without 1 knowing the truth(which we may never know), and 2 knowing the court verdict. 

Amber Heard Johnny Depp.
Emmett Till…

[Obinna]

18 minutes ago, Shway said:

Wait, what lol…I agree, but that’s not the point.

Deshaun Watson was brought up. Tbh I don’t know why, as it’s not even comparable. So I made mention of his situation. 

Point is, money changes everything, if a mere man couldn’t simply pay the asking price for his wrong doings, they wouldn’t want him to be free and would demand jail. Sadly your wealth determines your freedom as long as the FBI/CSIS doesn’t get involved. 

Thi$ happen$ all the time. 
There’s the law, and then there’s a price.

As for Harry, all I was saying is I won’t condemn or slander the man for allegations brought up against him without 1 knowing the truth(which we may never know), and 2 knowing the court verdict. 

Amber Heard Johnny Depp.
Emmett Till…

lol don't bother explaining yourself again man. You already explained yourself. That really should have been the end of it.

For some reason @RS wants to play make believe and pretend that you are "defending abusers", despite you clarifying otherwise, right here:

4 hours ago, Shway said:

@Pottsy3mentioning Deshaun Watson kinda goes with @SoCalTransport point.

I’m not defending him, or anyone….but once you  are willing to $ettle out of court in these matters, immediately sends a different message. 20 out of the 24 have currently took money for their pain and suffering. 

I don't really get it when people choose to sniff and prod for some sort of "gotcha" moment, instead of being normal and accepting your clarification on the matter. 

So you can go ahead and try a third time, but I am sure any further explanation you give will once again be ignored, insincerely and intentionally.   

He will probably respond to this with some form of snide response that doesn't address the point, or he will ignore it all together.

Maybe this time he'll surprise me though, let's see 

[RS]

44 minutes ago, Obinna said:

For some reason @RS wants to play make believe and pretend that you are "defending abusers", despite you clarifying otherwise, right here:

[snip]

I don't really get it when people choose to sniff and prod for some sort of "gotcha" moment, instead of being normal and accepting your clarification on the matter. 

So you can go ahead and try a third time, but I am sure any further explanation you give will once again be ignored, insincerely and intentionally.   

He will probably respond to this with some form of snide response that doesn't address the point, or he will ignore it all together.

Maybe this time he'll surprise me though, let's see 

That's some world-class projection, dude.

I literally just said it works both ways, and you're putting entirely different words into my (proverbial) mouth. As the "Mr. Both Sides" of this board I thought you would've been pleased with how I framed it.

I gue$$ it was my mimicking of @Shway's usage of dollar signs that set you off? 

EDIT: I really find it strange that you didn't go after @Pottsy3 for making a similar point to mine here:

Quote

I’m not really sure how someone going from pleading innocence in the media to financially compensating his accusers days later is proving any points.
 

To me, that just shows me that he knows he is at fault (and would be proved so civilly) but with not enough evidence for a criminal case to condemn him. Criminal convictions are a rarity in cases of sexual assault, but that’s not to say that assaults do not happen often. 

I guess the passive-aggressiveness of your posts hooks me in better than others on here, so it's probably my own fault for posting this response and giving you what you want.

[Shway]

1 hour ago, RS said:

I gue$$ it was my mimicking of @Shway's usage of dollar signs that set you off? 

No it’s your continued way of just voiding everything else and waiting for the “gotcha moment” that’s has nothing to do with the point like @Obinna said….maybe it’s just the journalist in you 😬.

[RJB]

3 hours ago, RS said:

This work$ both way$. 

Why would an innocent man be willing to $ettle out of court?

There are many reasons. A settlement is over quickly, the details are confidential, it could be cheaper than a lawyer, maybe there are embarrassing details, it's a major distraction, your family gets pulled into it too. 

Settlement does not equal guilt.