Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Eastside Catholic stuff
Comments
-
The deposition going to be awesomeGreenRiverGatorz said:
It's not often that a recently booted student athlete goes full lawyer and PR mode. Buckle up baby.Baseman said: -
If you KNEW it was false and published it resulting in damages it would most likely be defamation. I’ve never seen a defamation suit IRL even while clerking. It’s so rare professors don’t even want to waste time talking about it. And a 4-star recruit definitely qualifies as a public figure, which as you know raises the thresholdMakaDawg said:
Thought the malice part only applies to public figures? Unless you can make the argument prominent high school athletes are public figures (hmm). Moot point though because there is no clear disregard for the truth in publishing/referencing a police report, right? In fact, the opposite.RatherBeBrewing said:
Defamation suits are one of the biggest wastes of time. You have to prove negligence, harm, and that the statement was maliciously false.OreDawg said:
Proving a defamation suit is an incredibly high bar legally, I think that’s one of the most common misconceptions people have about the law. I’m not a lawyer, but to me this seems to be nowhere near reaching the standard of defamation. And if you sue and lose, which is the most likely thing in a defamation case by a mile, you often have to pay the attorneys fees (although I’m not sure this is true for Washington and I’m too lazy to look it up).Baseman said:
Right or wrong, CFB should prepare his anus and his wallet. Defending a defamation suit is no joke. Naming names -- minors' names -- under investigation, but not charged, is playing with fire. Plaintiff's attorneys have ways of discovering alt identities.insinceredawg said:
Buckle up. Either way, it will be interesting.
(not saying the kids will win. Don't twist.)
Also, anytime you file suit on someone it should be because they have assets or insurance worth your time. Suing an 18 year old running a parody twitter account is a waste of time unless you like burning money for no reason.
Studying for the Bar (or should be), but instead am relying on a teen boi recruiting site for legal tidbits. I know I’ll pass..
Quoting published stories, which quote official police investigations, is pretty safe. -
-
Yeah this is total bullshit. Hes not playing at tOSU this year cause the season is fucking cancelled.huskyhooligan said: -
Been trying to tell people it was Gee Sr, not Gee Jr.huskyhooligan said: -
When I was a kid, if there was group sex you either partook or hopped out the fucking car, not pull your phone out. What a weird voyeur/cuck/creep move.
-
Hahahajhfstyle24 said:
They are known. Not speculation.bananasnblondes said:So, obviously we're not posting it here, but are the names of the other 4 or 5 100% confirmed to be known or are we just speculating?
-
i never root for the kids to commit sex crimes
-
CaliBraska classy of you.WilburHooksHands said:i never root for the kids to commit sex crimes
I never blame the kids for choosing a group sex education. -
Why did King5 make an editor's note clarifying that one random kid wasnt involved. That seems...oddhuskyhooligan said: -
Yep just said the same thing in the Wam.bananasnblondes said:
Why did King5 make an editor's note clarifying that one random kid wasnt involved. That seems...oddhuskyhooligan said:
Something really weird about exonerating one and only one individual.
And the wording is funny too. The police reports explicitly state Scott wasn’t involved? That seems extremely unlikely.
-
It would appear he got in touch with his lawyersbananasnblondes said:
Why did King5 make an editor's note clarifying that one random kid wasnt involved. That seems...oddhuskyhooligan said: -
But there was no mention of him in any actual news reports. I don't think any names were mentioned. It seems odd that you would clarify that a certain student you never explicitly mentioned was not involved in an incident. The only explanation I see is that this is driven by pure narcissism like, "my son is a local celebrity. You need to run an extra story to make sure everyone knows he wasnt involved."Neighbor2972 said:
It would appear he got in touch with his lawyersbananasnblondes said:
Why did King5 make an editor's note clarifying that one random kid wasnt involved. That seems...oddhuskyhooligan said: -
There are two layers. Those who were there at the event, and those who circulated or viewed the video. If the police seized cell phones to check the circulation they may also be privy to text conversations regarding the event.
Some of these convos could be documented? Who knows. Maybe some of these kids lied about or attempted to stonewall investigators, helping a coverrup.
Anyway, there are many ways people could end up looking bad in relation to this case. -
Pure narcissism is definitely on the table here.bananasnblondes said:
But there was no mention of him in any actual news reports. I don't think any names were mentioned. It seems odd that you would clarify that a certain student you never explicitly mentioned was not involved in an incident. The only explanation I see is that this is driven by pure narcissism like, "my son is a local celebrity. You need to run an extra story to make sure everyone knows he wasnt involved."Neighbor2972 said:
It would appear he got in touch with his lawyersbananasnblondes said:
Why did King5 make an editor's note clarifying that one random kid wasnt involved. That seems...oddhuskyhooligan said:
I’m sure Gee’s Involved teammates appreciate him social (media) distancing himself from them so quickly and forcefully. -
General rule ... if somebody works really hard to convince you of something ... probably means that they are in full damage control mode
-
I honestly don’t disagreeTequilla said:General rule ... if somebody works really hard to convince you of something ... probably means that they are in full damage control mode
-
Seems like a preemptive strike to soften the blow of news regarding other levels of involvement or culpability.Tequilla said:General rule ... if somebody works really hard to convince you of something ... probably means that they are in full damage control mode
-
King 5 is burying them right now on TV. This is only getting started.
-
I don’t think King 5 is going to be the arbiter of truth on this. There is a reason they got all the documents from the PD a year and a half ago and other media outlets were unable to get anything until a lawsuit against the PD had formed and the Palo Alto newspaper reported about the abnormal behavior between King 5, the school, the kids’ lawyers and the PD.KrunkJuice said:King 5 is burying them right now on TV. This is only getting started.
For King 5 to come out with this all today, with a segment based predominately on direct interviews with the PD who investigated this seems super fishy.
The lawsuit with Seattle Times vs the county PD is going to be the main driver of how big this case gets and how much truth about what happened with the investigation ultimately gets shared. -
yeah, but why didn't we offer gee jr earlier? and gee sr an "assistant" gig?
-
Baseman said:
Right or wrong, CFB should prepare his anus and his wallet. Defending a defamation suit is no joke. Naming names -- minors' names -- under investigation, but not charged, is playing with fire. Plaintiff's attorneys have ways of discovering alt identities.insinceredawg said:
Buckle up. Either way, it will be interesting.
(not saying the kids will win. Don't twist.)
This, then poof. Just gone. -
Tail end of story said why KING5 sat on the story
I also say it’s super fishy that those videos can’t be re-discovered ... computer forensics can be pretty damning and this should be a layup -
it probably can ... nothing is ever "lost" in today's electronic world ... it's more like "what pressure do you need in order to make it happen" to get that video recovered.Tequilla said:Tail end of story said why KING5 sat on the story
I also say it’s super fishy that those videos can’t be re-discovered ... computer forensics can be pretty damning and this should be a layup
What's the political or legal will? -
Somewhere, someone has all the gifs they need
-
It doesn't seem odd to me. King 5 had access to all the police reports, and given that it's been widely assumed that Gee was one of the "three football players who received scholarships from prestigious universities", the disclaimer seems pretty necessary. As big of a boob Gee Sr. is, he should absolutely try to clear his son's name.dnc said:
Yep just said the same thing in the Wam.bananasnblondes said:
Why did King5 make an editor's note clarifying that one random kid wasnt involved. That seems...oddhuskyhooligan said:
Something really weird about exonerating one and only one individual.
And the wording is funny too. The police reports explicitly state Scott wasn’t involved? That seems extremely unlikely.
Now the question is who is that third player? Hopefully not our guy. -
Gee Sr is a douchebag, but the lust for blood, especially when they are saying Gee Jr wasn’t involved is pretty pathetic.GreenRiverGatorz said:
It doesn't seem odd to me. King 5 had access to all the police reports, and given that it's been widely assumed that Gee was one of the "three football players who received scholarships from prestigious universities", the disclaimer seems pretty necessary. As big of a boob Gee Sr. is, he should absolutely try to clear his son's name.dnc said:
Yep just said the same thing in the Wam.bananasnblondes said:
Why did King5 make an editor's note clarifying that one random kid wasnt involved. That seems...oddhuskyhooligan said:
Something really weird about exonerating one and only one individual.
And the wording is funny too. The police reports explicitly state Scott wasn’t involved? That seems extremely unlikely.
Now the question is who is that third player? Hopefully not our guy. -
Guys this doesn't get off season natty votes. Keep our eye on the ball
-
-
Or EXONERATED
but well done
