Jameis Winston Just Doesn't Get It

[jrry32]

So I'm still very hazy on your definition of "blacked out" because now you're using sloppy drunk as a synonym for "blacked out" and I know that's wrong. I and my friends have been sloppy drunk before and never had black outs. So they are not the same and that means I'm still not fully understanding what your definition is.

It's definitely not wrong. You can be sloppy drunk and not blackout. You can't be blackout drunk and not be sloppy. Sloppy drunk describes behavior. Blackout describes a level of drunkenness(by the outcome really). I've never in my life saw a person that ended up being blackout drunk that was not sloppy. Don't think it's possible to get that intoxicated and not show the effects.

Hopefully this will clear it up, I'll give you an anecdote. A buddy of mine had not been drinking for long so he had a low tolerance but he decided to drink an entire bottle(1L) of rum by himself at a party one night...and continued to drink other things. When he got to the point of blackout drunk(that point was relayed to me in the morning when he asked what had happened after that point), he was still capable of having a conversation(slurring his words but still easily understandable and coherent), he was capable of walking(obviously, he did not have good balance and was swaying some) and he was capable of doing most things at a competent level. He danced with a girl, had conversations, and could even jog(not well, though).

At one point, he was talking to two girls that were friends. One was good with it, the other was not. He had an arm around both. He wasn't really picking up on non-verbal cues or aware of anything beyond what he was focusing on so he wasn't really picking up on the fact that the one girl was getting really irritated by him having his arm around her while talking to her friend. I was drunk but not wasted or sloppy. I tried to get him to walk away since I could tell the one girl was getting mad but he grabbed a railing behind him and had the strength and coordination to refuse to move even as I pulled him. Eventually, I got him to let go and leave.

Anyways, just because you're blackout drunk does not mean you are non-responsive or near comatose. You just don't remember what happens. Most people when they're blackout drunk are able to function as well as any wasted person can until they continue to drink and ultimately pass out or stop drinking and sober up.

It's hard to explain but as I said, you're confusing blackout with passed out. It's a very different thing. Blackout drunk solely means that you got to a level of drunkenness where you won't remember what happened the next day. It does not mean you are so impaired that you can't function.

You have my head spinning and I'm getting too dizzy to talk about that anymore but I will ask you one more question. The quote I posted above doesn't seem to jibe with your earlier statement which I'll post now:

In the way I'm using it, the girl would still be conscious and able to function/be responsive...she'd just be really drunk and not remember some or most of the details in the morning. Does a person have the capacity to give consent in that situation? I doubt it.

You say you doubt they would have the capacity to give consent which would make it rape and yet in the 2. quote above you're using the same state to say it's mutual consent because they somehow managed to reach that state or close to that state at the same time or around the same time and thus are both equally unable to give consent which would make it consensual. Or maybe they raped each other.

Simple. The legal definition of capacity would tell you that a person that is severely intoxicated cannot consent. That is why I say, "I doubt it". I am speaking strictly from a legal point of view. I then gave you my PERSONAL point of view that if two people are severely intoxicated, I think it's an unfair double standard to say a man raped a woman if both were open to the sex in their drunken state. Because using the legal basis for capacity, neither could give consent so both are guilty of rape.

This is not including situations where the girl protests, is non-responsive, or unconscious.

 

[jrry32]

Not sure if you read the article written by the reporter that was posted in this thread.

Security tape disappeared, no cab records show them getting a cab even though they did those records are not there, her attorney was told her client would be "raked over the coals", the detective then closed the case......thee is a lot of stuff. Read this real quick it'll add some info for you.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...egations-against-fsu-jameis-winston.html?_r=2

I've read multiple articles on it including that one. I know HER SIDE of the story. But keep in mind that there is another side. And the other side of the story is something completely different.

With conflicting stories, I don't have the information to know who is lying. Some of the facts support her, some of the facts support him. The cops obviously bungled the investigation. However, here's the issue for me. That isn't reserved to this case. TPD has come under fire for their handling of multiple rape complaints.

So the idea that this is a police conspiracy/cover-up isn't something that I think is a fact. Could it be? Sure. But it's also just as possible that the cops simply bungled this investigation like they have multiple others. In the article you cited, here's the information I am referring to:

Early last October, a 19-year-old Florida State student was studying on a Saturday night while her roommates went drinking. She said they returned drunk, and a roommate’s former boyfriend, also a student, raped her in her room.

The student reported the encounter to the Tallahassee police. The episode had nothing to do with Mr. Winston, but it, too, raised questions about how the city police deal with rape accusations. The police response was so inappropriate, according to the father, that later on, in a complaint filed with the police, he compared it to the Winston inquiry, which had recently drawn criticism in the news media.

The father, a part-time deputy sheriff in another county, said he was away on business when he called his daughter and found her crying and confused. With prodding, she disclosed that she had just spoken to the police about “a situation,” but would say no more. An officer had told her that “it might be better not to inform me,” her father said.

Alarmed, he asked his wife to call. She did, and their daughter said she had been raped. The mother and a family friend, also a law enforcement officer, immediately drove more than two hours to Tallahassee. They found the daughter with what appeared to be choke marks on her neck.

According to the father, a Tallahassee police officer named Christopher Pate characterized the young woman as confused and having had a hard time communicating. “Why was I not given an advocate to speak with?” his daughter said in a complaint she filed later with the police. “I was raped and was stressed and scared.”


In a report, Officer Pate said he had offered the woman “many different avenues of help (victim advocate, female officer etc.). She refused them all.”

Rape crisis counselors, while not speaking specifically about this case, say traumatized victims often experience memory problems. “Victims themselves feel like they are losing their minds when they can’t remember, when they remember fragments that don’t seem to connect up,” said Meg Baldwin, executive director of the Tallahassee-based Refuge House, a haven for victims of domestic violence and rape. “The interpretation so often is, well, she’s lying, she’s in any event an unreliable witness who won’t be believed.”

Here's another article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/15/u...den-on-accusers.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

Now an examination of other cases from recent years shows a pattern to the handling of sexual assault complaints by Florida State students: After an accuser makes a police report and submits to a medical rape exam, the police ask if she wants them to investigate, and if she does not explicitly agree, they drop the case, often calling her uncooperative.

The student who accused Mr. Winston of raping her in December 2012 complained that a police report falsely stated that she had not cooperated and did not want the case pursued. Prosecutors did not learn of the case until months later, and concluded they could not successfully prosecute, but leveled withering criticism at the Tallahassee police for doing little to investigate.

In talking with the police, “they indicate that this happens all the time, victims come in, they’re not sure what they want to do, and the case is not investigated until they make up their mind,” said Georgia Cappleman, the chief assistant state attorney for a six-county region of Florida that includes Tallahassee.

 

[ShaneFalco]

i for one, think this kid should just ball hard the rest of the season, and show everyone, despite the issues, he is worth taking.


Dude can play football. Needs a couple more of those runs where he breaks 5 tackles for a td. Then all the reports about his behavior will dissapear until draft day.

 

[Thordaddy]

i for one, think this kid should just ball hard the rest of the season, and show everyone, despite the issues, he is worth taking.


Dude can play football. Needs a couple more of those runs where he breaks 5 tackles for a td. Then all the reports about his behavior will dissapear until draft day.

I guess someone still wants a QB who likes to break tackles, but I ain't oneuvum

 

[Alan]

jrry32 with the answer:
You can be sloppy drunk and not blackout.
Exactly. But you started this whole conversation talking about them being blacked out. Now you're talking about sloppy drunk instead. None of what I have said concerns women who are sloppy drunk. I've only and will only talk about blacked out women.

You can't be blackout drunk and not be sloppy. Sloppy drunk describes behavior. Blackout describes a level of drunkenness(by the outcome really). I've never in my life saw a person that ended up being blackout drunk that was not sloppy. Don't think it's possible to get that intoxicated and not show the effects.
Immaterial. The reason you've never seen a blacked out woman who also wasn't a sloppy drunk is because sloppy is the stage before blacked out and it carries over into blacked out. Again, I was/will only talk about blacked out women.

Hopefully this will clear it up, I'll give you an anecdote. A buddy of mine had not been drinking for long so he had a low tolerance but he decided to drink an entire bottle(1L) of rum by himself at a party one night...and continued to drink other things. When he got to the point of blackout drunk(that point was relayed to me in the morning when he asked what had happened after that point), he was still capable of having a conversation(slurring his words but still easily understandable and coherent), he was capable of walking(obviously, he did not have good balance and was swaying some) and he was capable of doing most things at a competent level. He danced with a girl, had conversations, and could even jog(not well, though).

At one point, he was talking to two girls that were friends. One was good with it, the other was not. He had an arm around both. He wasn't really picking up on non-verbal cues or aware of anything beyond what he was focusing on so he wasn't really picking up on the fact that the one girl was getting really irritated by him having his arm around her while talking to her friend. I was drunk but not wasted or sloppy. I tried to get him to walk away since I could tell the one girl was getting mad but he grabbed a railing behind him and had the strength and coordination to refuse to move even as I pulled him. Eventually, I got him to let go and leave.

I already understood your theory. My problem is that it seems to be morphing into something far different than what you started out with. That's why I quoted one of your original statements. I now understand why from what you wrote in your last paragraph.

Anyways, just because you're blackout drunk does not mean you are non-responsive or near comatose. You just don't remember what happens. Most people when they're blackout drunk are able to function as well as any wasted person can until they continue to drink and ultimately pass out or stop drinking and sober up.

It's hard to explain but as I said, you're confusing blackout with passed out. It's a very different thing. Blackout drunk solely means that you got to a level of drunkenness where you won't remember what happened the next day. It does not mean you are so impaired that you can't function.

You're right about it being hard to explain. I'll just respond by saying that I have never experienced talking to someone who later couldn't remember having a conversation that didn't pass out shortly after and I've lived with alcoholics and heavy drinkers most of my life. Nor have any of the people I've seen who are that intoxicated capable of giving conformed consent. Also and this is very important, no one I've ever seen in that condition has been capable of getting and keeping an erection long enough to commit a rape.

Your experiences seem to be different than mine. I find it somewhat remarkable and worrisome that you know so many people that black out when drinking but I guess that makes you more of an authority about this than I am. Still, what you are saying and describing doesn't meet my standards of logic. Doesn't mean you're wrong but it means I still disagree.

Simple. The legal definition of capacity would tell you that a person that is severely intoxicated cannot consent. That is why I say, "I doubt it". I am speaking strictly from a legal point of view. I then gave you my PERSONAL point of view that if two people are severely intoxicated, I think it's an unfair double standard to say a man raped a woman if both were open to the sex in their drunken state. Because using the legal basis for capacity, neither could give consent so both are guilty of rape.
So you contradict yourself and then later explain that one was your personal view and one was your legal view? :eek: I'll try and keep up better in the future.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Mojo Ram]

There are no rules for individuals who are blacked out in terms of appearing functional or sloppy. I have some past expertise on this subject.
When one is blacked out, some people are a mess and close to passing out. Others can "function" for hours and simply appear very drunk to others.

The only common denominator is that they have no memory of the events once blacked out.

 

[Alan]

Sounds like the best time to borrow money.

 

[jrry32]

There are no rules for individuals who are blacked out in terms of appearing functional or sloppy. I have some past expertise on this subject.
When one is blacked out, some people are a mess and close to passing out. Others can "function" for hours and simply appear very drunk to others.

The only common denominator is that they have no memory of the events once blacked out.

Yep, thanks for helping explain it, Mojo.

So you contradict yourself and then later explain that one was your personal view and one was your legal view? :eek: I'll try and keep up better in the future.

In the way I'm using it, the girl would still be conscious and able to function/be responsive...she'd just be really drunk and not remember some or most of the details in the morning. Does a person have the capacity to give consent in that situation? I doubt it. But my opinion is if the guy is also similarly drunk, it shouldn't be considered rape. I'd consider it rape if the guy was sober or near sober. Because he's taking advantage of her weakened mental condition. But if he's also in similarly weakened condition mentally, I can't call it rape.

I never contradicted myself, Alan. The quote above is where this discussion started in regards to capacity. I explicitly follow up the answer to your question with telling you what MY OPINION on the matter is. Capacity is a legal term. I gave you an "I doubt it" on what I thought the legal outcome would be and then explained my own opinion...marking such as my opinion.

No contradiction, Alan.

Your experiences seem to be different than mine. I find it somewhat remarkable and worrisome that you know so many people that black out when drinking but I guess that makes you more of an authority about this than I am. Still, what you are saying and describing doesn't meet my standards of logic. Doesn't mean you're wrong but it means I still disagree.

That's the thing about college, Alan. You run into a lot of people with substance abuse problems...and then you have others that don't necessarily have a "problem" but definitely go too hard when they do party. Some people will actually tell you that they are going to get blackout drunk. It's just the way college is.

Hell, I have another friend(different than the one mentioned earlier) that did 4 shots of Everclear in a 5 minute period on a dare. I don't know if you're familiar with Everclear but it's 190 proof alcohol. That guy was absolutely gone for hours.(he had drank previously to that but not heavily)

People do stupid things in college.

 

[Alan]

jrry32 touting the college experience:
I never contradicted myself, Alan. The quote above is where this discussion started in regards to capacity. I explicitly follow up the answer to your question with telling you what MY OPINION on the matter is. Capacity is a legal term. I gave you an "I doubt it" on what I thought the legal outcome would be and then explained my own opinion...marking such as my opinion.

People do stupid things in college.

In the end you didn't contradict yourself but you expressed two different and I would say opposing view points without explaining that you didn't actually agree with one until rhw end of our conversation. Confused the hell out of me. :eek:

Learned some stuff and it was entertaining so good stuff jrry.

 

[LesBaker]

Jrry we have differing views on what potentially happened. But you see that the investigations being "botched" smells like them not wanting the guy to get caught. That's part of what makes me think he did something. There aren't degrees of rape though, which makes some people think "oh they were drinking so that negates everything".

We only know her part of the story because Winston hasn't said a thing other than through his lawyer and they claim it was consenual. She claims it wasn't. What does she have to gain by lying about what happened and who raped her? Like Mac posted she is going to have her life damaged and in fact she was already semi-threatened with that by the idiot investigator who seemed to be covering up for Winston.

This is all bad for all parties, but my feeling is he got away with this. And I suspect a date rape drug given that she was handed a drink by one of the three guys. It's horrible.

 

[jrry32]

What do you guys think of this?

Winston claims, while in the training room, in response to a track athlete who made a remark, Winston dropped his shorts to moon the athlete. "I did it thinking the trainer wasn't where she would see. ... Even when she did, it seemed like something she'd have laughed at, considering the environment, or shrugged off as harmless. Crude maybe, but harmless."

Naughright and her lawyer provided a different version of events. In a court filing, her lawyer wrote that she was examining Winston to see why Winston was having pain in one of his feet and was crouched behind him when "entirely unprovoked, Winston decided to pull down his shorts and sit on Dr. Naughright's head and face."

As Naughright described it in a deposition entered into the court record: "It was the gluteus maximus, the rectum, the testicles and the area in between the testicles. And all that was on my face when I pushed him up. ... To get leverage, I took my head out to push him up and off."

The court record includes a letter to Winston from Florida State cross country runner Malcolm Saxon, who Winston said was the intended target of the mooning. Written in December 2013, the letter reads, in part: "Bro, you have tons of class, but you have shown no mercy or grace to this lady who was on her knees seeing if you had a stress fracture. ...

"Jameis, the way I see it, at this point, you are going to take a hit either way, if you settle out of court or if it goes to court. You might as well maintain some dignity and admit to what happened. ... Your celebrity doesn't mean you can treat folks that way. ... Do the right thing here."

In a court filing, Naughright's lawyer says his client reported the incident within hours to the Sexual Assault Crisis Center in Tallahassee.

According to a filing by Naughright's lawyer, Winston at first didn't call the incident a "mooning." The lawyer wrote that Winston "denied" that anything had occurred between him and Naughright. An associate trainer, Mike Rollo, was never a witness to the incident, but he got involved because he tried to intervene to help Winston come up with a story.

In a deposition cited in the filing, Rollo was asked if Naughright had ever referred to the incident as mooning. "No, unfortunately, I think that tagging is with me," Rollo answered.

The next question: "In other words, you were the first person to characterize it as a mooning, is that correct?"

"Unfortunately."

Reached by telephone Monday, Rollo referred questions to Florida State's lawyers, who didn't return telephone calls Monday.

In court documents, Naughright's lawyer wrote that after the incident with Winston, Winston taunted her by re-enacting his conduct on two occasions. The document also said that Winston called her a "bitch" during a drug test, when he snatched a pen, which he was supposed to use to sign and date the specimen, and threw it across the room.

 

[jrry32]

Jrry we have differing views on what potentially happened. But you see that the investigations being "botched" smells like them not wanting the guy to get caught. That's part of what makes me think he did something. There aren't degrees of rape though, which makes some people think "oh they were drinking so that negates everything".

We only know her part of the story because Winston hasn't said a thing other than through his lawyer and they claim it was consenual. She claims it wasn't. What does she have to gain by lying about what happened and who raped her? Like Mac posted she is going to have her life damaged and in fact she was already semi-threatened with that by the idiot investigator who seemed to be covering up for Winston.

This is all bad for all parties, but my feeling is he got away with this. And I suspect a date rape drug given that she was handed a drink by one of the three guys. It's horrible.

What does any person that files a false report alleging rape have to gain?

Along the same line of logic, what does Winston have to gain from raping her?

 

[Memento]

What does any person that files a false report alleging rape have to gain?

Along the same line of logic, what does Winston have to gain from raping her?

The same thing that many rapists have to "gain", Jrry. Power. Domination. Control.

 

[jrry32]

The same thing that many rapists have to "gain", Jrry. Power. Domination. Control.

And yet there are victims that falsely report rape...so they obviously have something to gain out of it too. This isn't a one way street. People need to stop treating it as such.

 

[Alan]

jrry32 not in sync:
And yet there are victims that falsely report rape...so they obviously have something to gain out of it too. This isn't a one way street. People need to stop treating it as such.

I don't believe that people are saying/treating this subject in that way. I myself gave you an example of the very thing you're talking about. What we are saying is that having looked at the "facts" that have been published, we discount the possibility that she's lying due to the preponderance of evidence to the contrary and our own life experiences.

 

[jrry32]

I don't believe that people are saying/treating this subject in that way. I myself gave you an example of the very thing you're talking about. What we are saying is that having looked at the "facts" that have been published, we discount the possibility that she's lying due to the preponderance of evidence to the contrary and our own life experiences.

What I am saying is that you have almost entirely the facts that support her side because those are what are being reported by the media since she is the one giving the information and that will, of course, support her story. Without the full facts, I cannot and will not make a judgement. NFL teams will have to investigate this but it's not something I can investigate myself.

 

[Prime Time]

As a former raging alcoholic I can speak with some authority on the subject of blackouts. That's the main reason I quit drinking. I could drink a six pack of beer one time with little effect and then the next day drink a single beer and wind up in another town with no knowledge of how I got there. It's like someone is walking around in your body and you're somewhere else. Don't know if I was sloppy during those blackouts because I wasn't mentally there.

And btw why does a star college athlete have to get a woman drunk or rape her in order to get laid? You would think that women at his college would have been crawling all over him anyway.

 

[Alan]

jrry32 waiting for the process:
What I am saying is that you have almost entirely the facts that support her side because those are what are being reported by the media since she is the one giving the information and that will, of course, support her story. Without the full facts, I cannot and will not make a judgement. NFL teams will have to investigate this but it's not something I can investigate myself.

Do you think that were there any mitigating facts on Winston's side they wouldn't be out there too?

Like any other opinion you have jrry, it's made based on the facts that you have. At what time in the process of gathering facts can you be assured that you haven't missed any? There is never a 100% surety that you have all the pertinent facts but until you obtain something contrary, you go with what you have. Even waiting for the legal process to run its course is no guarantee of certainty or correctness. What the issue is for this and every other opinion of mine, is having the ability/wisdom to change your opinion if new facts warrant it.

 

[Mackeyser]

I just read that and guess what came to mind.

Rohypnol. It seems like someone slipped her some.......

Clearly there was a serious cover up, this looks bad and I'm sure any NFL team that delves into this is going to have reservations about him, rightly so.

The next Darren Sharper...

Reading that account, I'm just sorry @jrry32, the preponderance of the evidence is against this guy including his DNA on her clothes (when they finally got around to getting it). Multiple victims and here's the key... this started BEFORE he was famous, so all the victim-blaming, "she's just a gold-digger" BS that goes on doesn't apply to this case. Not saying you're saying that, but I've seen it.

I don't give two rat farts if this guy can split an atom with football at 50 yards. He's a serial rapist and as someone who's raising two daughters, I don't want nothing to do with him. Moreover, I'm DISGUSTED that FSU cares so damn much about football that they STILL will side with rapists who play football over raped female students.

But, then, that's part of why the Tallahassee PD was being investigated by the Grand Jury... they were complicit, corrupt, inept and incapable. Yeah... that sounds like so much of Florida...

Thing is...he's an active rapist and by the evidence it looks like he is a serial rapist (he's certainly not abusing a spouse or someone he's in a relationship with, these women are strangers). This means that he's going to look for more opportunities.

Lemme just say this. I said that Blackmon was a problem coming out, but folks were all over this guy.

So, I'm going to call it now. Winston is Chernobyl. If he's not radioactive BEFORE he gets out of college, he will be soon. There's just no way he'll be able to turn it off. Won't matter if he finds a woman he likes or gets married. Rape isn't sex, it's violence via a sexual act and serial rapists don't stop. They have among the highest return and recidivism rates of any criminal.

I get it that some guys see him as just a misguided youth. I don't. I see him as a sociopath sexual predator who will not only rape again, but will irrevocably damage a multibillion dollar franchise in the process. The damage in lives and dollars will be....substantial. And those looking back will STILL look back in disbelief even though all the evidence was right there...all...along.

Ask the Wilf Family how it's going now that they've got AP's name on EVERYTHING and you can't separate Adrian Peterson's name from Child Abuse.

Any team that takes on Jameis Winston... Deserves What It Gets...

I sincerely hope the Rams can parse the difference between guys like Mo Alexander or Ethan Westbrooks, guys with flags and Jameis Winston...

 

[jrry32]

The next Darren Sharper...

Reading that account, I'm just sorry @jrry32, the preponderance of the evidence is against this guy including his DNA on her clothes (when they finally got around to getting it). Multiple victims and here's the key... this started BEFORE he was famous, so all the victim-blaming, "she's just a gold-digger" BS that goes on doesn't apply to this case. Not saying you're saying that, but I've seen it.

There are not multiple victims of rape.

However, you forget some other evidence. You forget his two roommates testifying that this was consensual sex. You forget that there was DNA from more than one male on her clothes. You forget that he claimed the sex was consensual. You forget that she admits that she gave her number to Chris Casher. You forget that she was drinking quite a bit of alcohol that night. Finally, you forget that Winston was well known at FSU at the time(not playing the money card, though, it has little standing). The girl even admits such in the NYT article:

She said that while her client was indeed concerned about the prospect of pressing her case against a star-in-waiting, “at no time did we call him and tell him we don’t want you to do an investigation.” Her client, she added, simply wanted more information before deciding what to do.

There are two sides of the story. I don't know both. I don't have all the evidence. I am not going to make a conclusion about something as damaging as rape.

Do you think that were there any mitigating facts on Winston's side they wouldn't be out there too?

Like any other opinion you have jrry, it's made based on the facts that you have. At what time in the process of gathering facts can you be assured that you haven't missed any? There is never a 100% surety that you have all the pertinent facts but until you obtain something contrary, you go with what you have. Even waiting for the legal process to run its course is no guarantee of certainty or correctness. What the issue is for this and every other opinion of mine, is having the ability/wisdom to change your opinion if new facts warrant it.

Not necessarily.

At what time? At least until you know both sides of the story. Taking one side of the story as the facts is never going to lead you to an objective conclusion. If both sides don't come out, I guess you make a choice. You can choose to believe something about a person based on limited information or you can choose to not come to any conclusion. I prefer the latter.