"Credibly" isn't the word I'd use. There was a pretty thorough investigation of her claims and it turned out those claims weren't very credible.
RIP Kobe Bryant
- Thread starter Timsup2nothin
- Start date
"Credibly" isn't the word I'd use. There was a pretty thorough investigation of her claims and it turned out those claims weren't very credible.
In another thread we had a settlement as evidence that something bad did happen, but here we have it being dismissed because presumably it's inconvenient to whatever narrative you're trying to spin.
Anyhow. Bryant was an incredibly complicated person by dint of his successes and his failures, notably including the rape case. Some people are going to legitimately be sad at his passing, but other people are going to want to vent their own complicated feelings of an accused rapist being glamourised by others.
My personal opinion is that it's fine to speak ill of the dead. Nothing anyone says here in OT, for example, is going to be directly mailed to his grieving family, and that if the dead don't want to be spoken of badly, then perhaps they shouldn't give cause for it to happen when they were alive.
I never argued settlement is a sign of guilt. What I said was that settling is often perceived as a sign of guilt. I then went on to say that the defendant usually settles because it is less costly and risky than going to trial.
It was a different poster that argued settlements equal guilt. If you are going to try to paint me as a hypocrite, please make sure you are actually getting what I said correct.
You literally just said "settling is often perceived as a sign of guilt". You also defended Fox News by saying, and I quote, "Fox News has never been sued for spreading fake news and forced to settle". Sounds to me like you're pretty clear where your perception lies in that case. And yet not in this one. But regardless, you're the one who tried to counterpoint Lexicus without even referencing said settlement, with an added bonus of trying to undermine the credibility of the victim to boot.
If you want to keep arguing this despite the fact my post was about accepting the complicated reality of Bryant being legitimately respected for his sport and what he brought to representation in that sport, and him being credibly accused of rape, feel free. Just feels one-sided to go in on undermining the (serious) rape allegation, and personally makes me believe that if that's all you have to offer, then I don't particularly care in amplifying it further.
She wasn't a victim though because there was no rape. So she undermined her own credibility by making a false accusation.
Narz
keeping it real
That was me making that claim in a totally different circumstance. There we had a big corporation clearly slandered a kid who didn't want to draw attention to itself and paid the kid off to avoid a case it would probably lose.
I don't know anything about this case outside of what I read on this thread and wiki but I find it odd the woman was not willing to testify. If I or a family member suffered sexual assault I would consider it a duty to testify and convict said assailant.
Life is full of nuance. Yes I know it makes things complicated but that's just the way it is.
You don't need to stick up for Commodore, I quoted the exact post I wanted to.
To speak briefly on testifying, there are a vast number of recorded times as to why victims don't always come forwards. In this case, it's easily Google-able evidence that the person in question was harassed and received death threats. Who knows if that was the reason? I certainly don't. But they're an undeniable part of the public record and will have undoubtably affected the victim.
You are not them, you weren't in their position. To assume anything further is to already assume too much about what you would or could do in that situation. It's traumatising. Even the process of going the public eye is traumatising. You said it yourself, life is full of nuance. Don't make judgements of other people based on what you think you would do in that situation.
To speak briefly on testifying, there are a vast number of recorded times as to why victims don't always come forwards. In this case, it's easily Google-able evidence that the person in question was harassed and received death threats. Who knows if that was the reason? I certainly don't. But they're an undeniable part of the public record and will have undoubtably affected the victim.
You are not them, you weren't in their position. To assume anything further is to already assume too much about what you would or could do in that situation. It's traumatising. Even the process of going the public eye is traumatising. You said it yourself, life is full of nuance. Don't make judgements of other people based on what you think you would do in that situation.
It's not just about her not testifying though. A thorough investigation was done and there wasn't any convincing evidence that a rape had taken place beyond her claim that one did.
I'm starting to think you aren't actually familiar with the case and are just basing your opinion on what others have told you about it.
I'm not the one making things up about other posters to try and discredit them. Not the best look, especially considering you completely ignored my renewed request for the complexity of Bryant as a person (and as such, his passing).
Narz made a comment about testifying - I was replying to him. Not you. It's a public forum, sure, but my response was meant for him, to explain why a lack of testimony is something that can happen in general. It was not meant to be a catch-all defense for a case that eventually (and after a good amount of time) lead to a settlement anyway.
Look up Wikipedia if you want to argue with something. I'm not arguing the particulars of a case that's on public record. If you want an good faith discussion that doesn't involve dragging whatever this is through the thread, please do PM me.
Narz
keeping it real
Alleged victim.
If I was scared for my life (let's say I was testifying against a crime boss) I'd be reluctant to accept a payday from them. People scared for their lives generally back off completely. She decided not to testify but had no problem accepting money, a rational economic decision for someone seeking quick cash, for someone who felt violated & wanted justice not so much.
I used the word "odd", I didn't judge the accuser, just said I'm not inclined to believe her based on what little I know about the case.
Who knows, perhaps he was guilty, now that he's dead only the accuser knows that, but I see no reason to think it was probable.
That's a judgement, just for the record. As was deciding to be "not inclined" to believe her based on what little you've just admitted to knowing.
Anyhow, you do you. It was settled, which for me settles the entire attempt at an argument based on your previous logic, and I don't care what rationalisation you have to tell yourself in order to not follow that logic here.
Narz
keeping it real
So no one should have any opinion with imperfect information lest someone call them judgey?
Since when have you been persuaded by my logic?
A case against an individual is very different from one against a corporation.
I'll grant you that the fact he paid her isn't a good look. If I were him (assuming innocence) I would've told her to bring it on. But from what I understand of the guy he's very single-minded and unlikely to want to devote the time or emotional energy to that issue (and deal with the harm it would do to his family regardless of eventual verdict). I would never be in that situation though as I would never cheat on my wife.
You might not say that if you were a rich celebrity though. I remember Russell Brand talking about why he cheated on Katy Perry and his reasoning was that when you have attractive women constantly throwing themselves at you, you can only keep saying "no" for so long before you finally give in. His point being that biology will eventually override loyalty.
That's why sex is such a potent weapon to get someone to betray their cause, government, etc.
Cloud_Strife
Deity
It's striking how similar this is to the tactics that the Catholic Church used and still uses to discredit their victims; default to "it didn't happen" and them move on to attack the victim.
Yeah, I can't imagine why a woman would have issues going ahead, after all opinions like yours are still sadly widespread.
Or do we need to look back at the likes of Michael Jackson, Bill Cosby etc to see how often the victims were gaslit and attacked by those with similar views
Narz
keeping it real
If I marry I will have it in writing that the marriage is open (how open will be between my wife & I, obviously not all things will be permitted), I've caught clamyida three times, I'll well aware of my weaknesses.
Nobody is wholly good or wholly bad. The allegations were probably true. Bryant also did a lot of other good things. He was both the 25 year old who more or less acknowledged something bad was done in that hotel room (he stated that he understands that she felt it was not consensual), and he was also the inspiring leader to a generation of basketballers, one of the towering figures of any sport for both oncourt performance and latter day off-court interactions. And more recently, also a very visible and enthusiastic sport superdad.
Did he regret, acknowledge, and correct that earlier transgression? I dunno. Maybe? Was his later life a reflection of what he learned? Who knows.
Grief is valid and natural and doesn't require flawlessness and shouldn't be diminished. Those feeling pain from his apparent transgression and from the oh so typical public attacks on the victim are also valid, and also should not be diminished. And obituary never needs to be hagiography.
Did he regret, acknowledge, and correct that earlier transgression? I dunno. Maybe? Was his later life a reflection of what he learned? Who knows.
Grief is valid and natural and doesn't require flawlessness and shouldn't be diminished. Those feeling pain from his apparent transgression and from the oh so typical public attacks on the victim are also valid, and also should not be diminished. And obituary never needs to be hagiography.
Last edited:
Some people at work were criticizing other basketball players and sports media personalities for expressing their grief. They were saying that it was all an act and that they probably didn't care about Kobe at all.
I had to correct them by letting them know that the professional sports community is actually pretty small and all these guys know each other and are friends with each other. That includes a lot of the media personalities as well. So there is a pretty good chance the grief being expressed is real as a lot of them probably were friends with Kobe or at least knew him on a more personal level than the average fan.
I had to correct them by letting them know that the professional sports community is actually pretty small and all these guys know each other and are friends with each other. That includes a lot of the media personalities as well. So there is a pretty good chance the grief being expressed is real as a lot of them probably were friends with Kobe or at least knew him on a more personal level than the average fan.
He was also really active in player development and mentoring, so a lot of the younger stars did know him personally, as do a number of the older players who played with and against him. At the Clippers for example, Kawhi Leonard and Paul George trained with him and spent time, and Lou Williams played with him in his last year, and Doc Rivers coached against him and met him during those big matchups. There's connections like that all over the league.
There's also likely to be an element of simple recognition of someone dying prematurely in a similar life to them. When Australian cricketer Phillip Hughes died after being struck in the head onfield, the outpouring of grief was very real right across the cricket world based not just on knowing him personally but also on the familiarity of his life and circumstances. Everyone had faced fast bowling, everyone knew it could have been them. A young recently retired NBA star dying with family and friends in a helicopter crash would have felt very real to everyone else in that world regardless of their direct connection.
There's also likely to be an element of simple recognition of someone dying prematurely in a similar life to them. When Australian cricketer Phillip Hughes died after being struck in the head onfield, the outpouring of grief was very real right across the cricket world based not just on knowing him personally but also on the familiarity of his life and circumstances. Everyone had faced fast bowling, everyone knew it could have been them. A young recently retired NBA star dying with family and friends in a helicopter crash would have felt very real to everyone else in that world regardless of their direct connection.
Last edited:
I found a piece that echoes a lot of my (and on reading, I think Arwon's) views: https://stadio.football/latest/twosigns
