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.

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.

very tricky but perhaps a good place to err on the side of caution, especially when you are bringing extra diks.

https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-determine-that-a-woman-is-too-drunk-to-consent-to-sex

mreinman wrote:

Welpee wrote: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.

very tricky but perhaps a good place to err on the side of caution, especially when you are bringing extra diks.

https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-determine-that-a-woman-is-too-drunk-to-consent-to-sex

The link offers some good rules of prudence to try to steer clear of such situations. But prudence and law are different matters. I have searched what California law stipulates on the topic of what constitutes a level of intoxication where a person is no longer able to consent and how one can recognize it, but was not able to find anything definitive.

And imagine the reverse situation: a guy gets very drunk, has a slurred speech, barely stands on his feet, then some woman takes him home and they have sex while he is clearly incapacitated mentally to make a sound judgment. The next morning he wakes up, sees this woman is a dog, thinks of the wonderful wife he has left back home, remembers the risk of STDs, etc. Can he claim that he was raped because he was too drunk to make a sound judgment about sex that night?

mreinman wrote:

Welpee wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Welpee wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:

Welpee wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:

nixluva wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:

nixluva wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:

nixluva wrote:

callmened wrote:I don't know whether there was consent or not.
I don't know what happened that night...that's up to a jury to decide

But to me rose's actions or thought process are disgusting whether there was consent or not

From what I understand, the girl begged to be his girlfriend. Rose broke up with her cuz she wouldn't let his friends have sex with her. Rose basically said if you don't let my friends have sex with you then we won't be a couple. THAT'S CRAZY!!! Now the rest is up to a jury. Sounds like they all got drunk and something went down...was it consented or not. I don't know.

I just think having a girl and wanting your friends to also sleep with her is CRAZY!!!!!!

From what I've read it doesn't seem like Rose EVER considered her anything more than a sex partner. Nothing I've read sounds like a normal committed relationship based on love and respect. She willingly dealt with him knowing what he was like. I'm not going to moralize about the behavior just because I don't agree with it. That's you're own personal choice. It seems clear she chose to deal with Rose knowing what kind of man he was and what his friends were like. They didn't hide their desires from her and her friend knew it too.

Now as for what happened that night the 2nd time they got together, she doesn't even know exactly what happened and she wasn't forced to get drunk or to text Rose to come over. She was lucid enough to text Rose after she got home and tell him she wanted him to come to her. The whole thing is a mess and it's not cut and dry the way some are trying to make it seem.

Whether you love Rose or not he made a bad judgment in this situation. It doesn't matter if he wears a knick uniform. Hell if Porzingis did a similar thing I would criticize him too and he is my favorite knick.

Every weekend there are men and women going to bars and clubs looking to have fun and possibly hook up. When they drink their inhibitions are relaxed and men are sleeping with women under those impaired conditions all the time. It's a risky lifestyle and adults engage in this knowingly. Rape is rape but under those circumstances it makes it harder to prove just what was said and done.

Women in this situation are in a tough spot. 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.

Either way Rose messed up.

Oh he was an idiot!!! There are plenty of women out there that are down with his lifestyle. No need to force it upon someone who wasn't really into it. On top of that he could've smoothed things with her by just apologizing and being decent. He was a jerk and now it's coming back on him. Still doesn't mean she was raped. The Police decided her case was weak and I think his lawyers may point this out to the jury. So she's not guaranteed to win this either. If I was his lawyer I would advise to settle cuz it's not worth it. He messed up and should've just paid up. Lesson learned. This could cost him more than if he settled.

but that isnt point. Sure he may not be guilty of a criminal charge but that behavior shows that he isnt a good guy. Thankfully he only has 1 year left on his deal

Where do you draw the "good guy" line? Are you not a good guy if you hit the strip clubs? Cheat on your wife or girlfriend? Like having orgies? Like having sex on webcams? Date multiple women at the same time? Like taking pics of your privates with your cell phone? If being a "good guy" is defined by your bedroom behavior I bet you'd be surprised how many guys are also not "good guys," they just haven't been caught.

So if he didn't rape her but is into orgies, that makes him not a "good guy?"

so im guessing you are his side? Never said he raped her but it Seems like he pressured her which isnt right

I'm not on anybody's side. I'm not siding with Rose because he's a Knick. I'm not siding with the woman just because she's a female. Like I said, nobody really knows what happened. I will admit I find her version of the story hard to believe.

The reality is the truth is probably somewhere in the middle and they're both lying to a certain extent.

Ok ... so perhaps there was a little bit of a shady sexual transgression here? Like I said, she is irrelevant cause she does not play for the knicks.

"Shady sexual transgression" is a loaded term. One person's definition of a "transgression" could be another person's definition of just being kinky. Is an orgie a transgression or just kinky? But yes, he probably did something he shouldn't have done. Whether it was illegal is another story. Being a sleaze or a jerk is not a crime.

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

mreinman wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Welpee wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Welpee wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:

Welpee wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:

nixluva wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:

nixluva wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:

nixluva wrote:

callmened wrote:I don't know whether there was consent or not.
I don't know what happened that night...that's up to a jury to decide

But to me rose's actions or thought process are disgusting whether there was consent or not

From what I understand, the girl begged to be his girlfriend. Rose broke up with her cuz she wouldn't let his friends have sex with her. Rose basically said if you don't let my friends have sex with you then we won't be a couple. THAT'S CRAZY!!! Now the rest is up to a jury. Sounds like they all got drunk and something went down...was it consented or not. I don't know.

I just think having a girl and wanting your friends to also sleep with her is CRAZY!!!!!!

From what I've read it doesn't seem like Rose EVER considered her anything more than a sex partner. Nothing I've read sounds like a normal committed relationship based on love and respect. She willingly dealt with him knowing what he was like. I'm not going to moralize about the behavior just because I don't agree with it. That's you're own personal choice. It seems clear she chose to deal with Rose knowing what kind of man he was and what his friends were like. They didn't hide their desires from her and her friend knew it too.

Now as for what happened that night the 2nd time they got together, she doesn't even know exactly what happened and she wasn't forced to get drunk or to text Rose to come over. She was lucid enough to text Rose after she got home and tell him she wanted him to come to her. The whole thing is a mess and it's not cut and dry the way some are trying to make it seem.

Whether you love Rose or not he made a bad judgment in this situation. It doesn't matter if he wears a knick uniform. Hell if Porzingis did a similar thing I would criticize him too and he is my favorite knick.

Every weekend there are men and women going to bars and clubs looking to have fun and possibly hook up. When they drink their inhibitions are relaxed and men are sleeping with women under those impaired conditions all the time. It's a risky lifestyle and adults engage in this knowingly. Rape is rape but under those circumstances it makes it harder to prove just what was said and done.

Women in this situation are in a tough spot. 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.

Either way Rose messed up.

Oh he was an idiot!!! There are plenty of women out there that are down with his lifestyle. No need to force it upon someone who wasn't really into it. On top of that he could've smoothed things with her by just apologizing and being decent. He was a jerk and now it's coming back on him. Still doesn't mean she was raped. The Police decided her case was weak and I think his lawyers may point this out to the jury. So she's not guaranteed to win this either. If I was his lawyer I would advise to settle cuz it's not worth it. He messed up and should've just paid up. Lesson learned. This could cost him more than if he settled.

but that isnt point. Sure he may not be guilty of a criminal charge but that behavior shows that he isnt a good guy. Thankfully he only has 1 year left on his deal

Where do you draw the "good guy" line? Are you not a good guy if you hit the strip clubs? Cheat on your wife or girlfriend? Like having orgies? Like having sex on webcams? Date multiple women at the same time? Like taking pics of your privates with your cell phone? If being a "good guy" is defined by your bedroom behavior I bet you'd be surprised how many guys are also not "good guys," they just haven't been caught.

So if he didn't rape her but is into orgies, that makes him not a "good guy?"

so im guessing you are his side? Never said he raped her but it Seems like he pressured her which isnt right

I'm not on anybody's side. I'm not siding with Rose because he's a Knick. I'm not siding with the woman just because she's a female. Like I said, nobody really knows what happened. I will admit I find her version of the story hard to believe.

The reality is the truth is probably somewhere in the middle and they're both lying to a certain extent.

Ok ... so perhaps there was a little bit of a shady sexual transgression here? Like I said, she is irrelevant cause she does not play for the knicks.

"Shady sexual transgression" is a loaded term. One person's definition of a "transgression" could be another person's definition of just being kinky. Is an orgie a transgression or just kinky? But yes, he probably did something he shouldn't have done. Whether it was illegal is another story. Being a sleaze or a jerk is not a crime.

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

The documents I have seen involved him wanting her to bring another girl or to 'swing' with a friend and his girl. She didn't want to do it but I haven't seen anything that was submitted as evidence that involved him wanting her to do a bunch of his friends.

didn't the actual incident allegedly involved him and two others?

Crush has posted this link several times as everything you can find about the incident:

CrushAlot wrote:Everything you want to know about what the two sides are claiming is covered here, http://thewhitebronco.com/2016/09/the-derrick-rose-sexual-assault-trial-primer/

Easy enough for you to answer for us. I have not read.

CrushAlot wrote:

mreinman wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Welpee wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Welpee wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:

Welpee wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:

nixluva wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:

nixluva wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:

nixluva wrote:

callmened wrote:I don't know whether there was consent or not.
I don't know what happened that night...that's up to a jury to decide

But to me rose's actions or thought process are disgusting whether there was consent or not

From what I understand, the girl begged to be his girlfriend. Rose broke up with her cuz she wouldn't let his friends have sex with her. Rose basically said if you don't let my friends have sex with you then we won't be a couple. THAT'S CRAZY!!! Now the rest is up to a jury. Sounds like they all got drunk and something went down...was it consented or not. I don't know.

I just think having a girl and wanting your friends to also sleep with her is CRAZY!!!!!!

From what I've read it doesn't seem like Rose EVER considered her anything more than a sex partner. Nothing I've read sounds like a normal committed relationship based on love and respect. She willingly dealt with him knowing what he was like. I'm not going to moralize about the behavior just because I don't agree with it. That's you're own personal choice. It seems clear she chose to deal with Rose knowing what kind of man he was and what his friends were like. They didn't hide their desires from her and her friend knew it too.

Now as for what happened that night the 2nd time they got together, she doesn't even know exactly what happened and she wasn't forced to get drunk or to text Rose to come over. She was lucid enough to text Rose after she got home and tell him she wanted him to come to her. The whole thing is a mess and it's not cut and dry the way some are trying to make it seem.

Whether you love Rose or not he made a bad judgment in this situation. It doesn't matter if he wears a knick uniform. Hell if Porzingis did a similar thing I would criticize him too and he is my favorite knick.

Every weekend there are men and women going to bars and clubs looking to have fun and possibly hook up. When they drink their inhibitions are relaxed and men are sleeping with women under those impaired conditions all the time. It's a risky lifestyle and adults engage in this knowingly. Rape is rape but under those circumstances it makes it harder to prove just what was said and done.

Women in this situation are in a tough spot. 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.

Either way Rose messed up.

Oh he was an idiot!!! There are plenty of women out there that are down with his lifestyle. No need to force it upon someone who wasn't really into it. On top of that he could've smoothed things with her by just apologizing and being decent. He was a jerk and now it's coming back on him. Still doesn't mean she was raped. The Police decided her case was weak and I think his lawyers may point this out to the jury. So she's not guaranteed to win this either. If I was his lawyer I would advise to settle cuz it's not worth it. He messed up and should've just paid up. Lesson learned. This could cost him more than if he settled.

but that isnt point. Sure he may not be guilty of a criminal charge but that behavior shows that he isnt a good guy. Thankfully he only has 1 year left on his deal

Where do you draw the "good guy" line? Are you not a good guy if you hit the strip clubs? Cheat on your wife or girlfriend? Like having orgies? Like having sex on webcams? Date multiple women at the same time? Like taking pics of your privates with your cell phone? If being a "good guy" is defined by your bedroom behavior I bet you'd be surprised how many guys are also not "good guys," they just haven't been caught.

So if he didn't rape her but is into orgies, that makes him not a "good guy?"

so im guessing you are his side? Never said he raped her but it Seems like he pressured her which isnt right

I'm not on anybody's side. I'm not siding with Rose because he's a Knick. I'm not siding with the woman just because she's a female. Like I said, nobody really knows what happened. I will admit I find her version of the story hard to believe.

The reality is the truth is probably somewhere in the middle and they're both lying to a certain extent.

Ok ... so perhaps there was a little bit of a shady sexual transgression here? Like I said, she is irrelevant cause she does not play for the knicks.

"Shady sexual transgression" is a loaded term. One person's definition of a "transgression" could be another person's definition of just being kinky. Is an orgie a transgression or just kinky? But yes, he probably did something he shouldn't have done. Whether it was illegal is another story. Being a sleaze or a jerk is not a crime.

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

The documents I have seen involved him wanting her to bring another girl or to 'swing' with a friend and his girl. She didn't want to do it but I haven't seen anything that was submitted as evidence that involved him wanting her to do a bunch of his friends.

didn't the actual incident allegedly involved him and two others?

Yep.

so did he asked her to have sex with his boys that night? Or did he just assumed that if she would not do it with one of them then she would have no problem if he brought 2?

Maybe he thought that if she was awake then she had a problem with him bringing another guy (and perhaps his girl) but if she is passed out then she would not have to look at them so it would be cool?

CrushAlot wrote:

mreinman wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

mreinman wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Welpee wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Welpee wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:

Welpee wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:

nixluva wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:

nixluva wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:

nixluva wrote:

callmened wrote:I don't know whether there was consent or not.
I don't know what happened that night...that's up to a jury to decide

But to me rose's actions or thought process are disgusting whether there was consent or not

From what I understand, the girl begged to be his girlfriend. Rose broke up with her cuz she wouldn't let his friends have sex with her. Rose basically said if you don't let my friends have sex with you then we won't be a couple. THAT'S CRAZY!!! Now the rest is up to a jury. Sounds like they all got drunk and something went down...was it consented or not. I don't know.

I just think having a girl and wanting your friends to also sleep with her is CRAZY!!!!!!

From what I've read it doesn't seem like Rose EVER considered her anything more than a sex partner. Nothing I've read sounds like a normal committed relationship based on love and respect. She willingly dealt with him knowing what he was like. I'm not going to moralize about the behavior just because I don't agree with it. That's you're own personal choice. It seems clear she chose to deal with Rose knowing what kind of man he was and what his friends were like. They didn't hide their desires from her and her friend knew it too.

Now as for what happened that night the 2nd time they got together, she doesn't even know exactly what happened and she wasn't forced to get drunk or to text Rose to come over. She was lucid enough to text Rose after she got home and tell him she wanted him to come to her. The whole thing is a mess and it's not cut and dry the way some are trying to make it seem.

Whether you love Rose or not he made a bad judgment in this situation. It doesn't matter if he wears a knick uniform. Hell if Porzingis did a similar thing I would criticize him too and he is my favorite knick.

Every weekend there are men and women going to bars and clubs looking to have fun and possibly hook up. When they drink their inhibitions are relaxed and men are sleeping with women under those impaired conditions all the time. It's a risky lifestyle and adults engage in this knowingly. Rape is rape but under those circumstances it makes it harder to prove just what was said and done.

Women in this situation are in a tough spot. 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.

Either way Rose messed up.

Oh he was an idiot!!! There are plenty of women out there that are down with his lifestyle. No need to force it upon someone who wasn't really into it. On top of that he could've smoothed things with her by just apologizing and being decent. He was a jerk and now it's coming back on him. Still doesn't mean she was raped. The Police decided her case was weak and I think his lawyers may point this out to the jury. So she's not guaranteed to win this either. If I was his lawyer I would advise to settle cuz it's not worth it. He messed up and should've just paid up. Lesson learned. This could cost him more than if he settled.

but that isnt point. Sure he may not be guilty of a criminal charge but that behavior shows that he isnt a good guy. Thankfully he only has 1 year left on his deal

Where do you draw the "good guy" line? Are you not a good guy if you hit the strip clubs? Cheat on your wife or girlfriend? Like having orgies? Like having sex on webcams? Date multiple women at the same time? Like taking pics of your privates with your cell phone? If being a "good guy" is defined by your bedroom behavior I bet you'd be surprised how many guys are also not "good guys," they just haven't been caught.

So if he didn't rape her but is into orgies, that makes him not a "good guy?"

so im guessing you are his side? Never said he raped her but it Seems like he pressured her which isnt right

I'm not on anybody's side. I'm not siding with Rose because he's a Knick. I'm not siding with the woman just because she's a female. Like I said, nobody really knows what happened. I will admit I find her version of the story hard to believe.

The reality is the truth is probably somewhere in the middle and they're both lying to a certain extent.

Ok ... so perhaps there was a little bit of a shady sexual transgression here? Like I said, she is irrelevant cause she does not play for the knicks.

"Shady sexual transgression" is a loaded term. One person's definition of a "transgression" could be another person's definition of just being kinky. Is an orgie a transgression or just kinky? But yes, he probably did something he shouldn't have done. Whether it was illegal is another story. Being a sleaze or a jerk is not a crime.

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

The documents I have seen involved him wanting her to bring another girl or to 'swing' with a friend and his girl. She didn't want to do it but I haven't seen anything that was submitted as evidence that involved him wanting her to do a bunch of his friends.

didn't the actual incident allegedly involved him and two others?

Yep.

so did he asked her to have sex with his boys that night? Or did he just assumed that if she would not do it with one of them then she would have no problem if he brought 2?

Maybe he thought that if she was awake then she had a problem with him bringing another guy (and perhaps his girl) but if she is passed out then she would not have to look at them so it would be cool?

I don't know. When she sent the car back for him to go to her place he texted her that they were going to 'put her to work'.

So when one hears 'put to work' that usually means to expect to be gang raped?

EnySpree wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

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.

Rose might be a piece of **** but rapist not so much....

As far as fan shield? I'm quite sick of you and this topic. You can think whatever you want about Rose but don't try to insinuate we are ok with rape just because we are a fan of the team. That's enough.

Might be time to lock this thread before this gets out of hand. We can revisit this after his court appearances next month.

How do you know he is not a rapist? If he/they raped her then he actually is a rapist.

Just because you are a fan of the team, it does not have to mean that you dismiss the possibility that this was rape (even though he is one of your/our boys now).

This is an extremely important topic on so many levels and guess where it landed? Right here and its not going anywhere for the time being so you may have to just deal with it instead making believe that it does not exist.

nixluva wrote:

mreinman wrote:

EnySpree wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

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.

Rose might be a piece of **** but rapist not so much....

As far as fan shield? I'm quite sick of you and this topic. You can think whatever you want about Rose but don't try to insinuate we are ok with rape just because we are a fan of the team. That's enough.

Might be time to lock this thread before this gets out of hand. We can revisit this after his court appearances next month.

How do you know he is not a rapist? If he/they raped her then he actually is a rapist.

Just because you are a fan of the team, it does not have to mean that you dismiss the possibility that this was rape (even though he is one of your/our boys now).

This is an extremely important topic on so many levels and guess where it landed? Right here and its not going anywhere for the time being so you may have to just deal with it instead making believe that it does not exist.

You keep accusing Forum Members of excusing the possibility of Rape based purely on Homerism. This is highly offensive and you have no right to accuse anyone of such a thing. Martin this needs to stop!

He said that he is not a rapist? How does he know that? Looks like you guys are having a hard time swallowing this but as I said, its here and its important for people to know about it and for there to be a much needed awareness.

You had the nerve to say that she knew what she was getting into as if somehow that makes it her fault which is beyond alarming. You should retract that and never say such a thing again.

You and Eny seemed to have rushed to his defense without a clue ... that is either homerism cause he is our boy or plain ignorant.

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:

mreinman wrote:

EnySpree wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

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.

Rose might be a piece of **** but rapist not so much....

As far as fan shield? I'm quite sick of you and this topic. You can think whatever you want about Rose but don't try to insinuate we are ok with rape just because we are a fan of the team. That's enough.

Might be time to lock this thread before this gets out of hand. We can revisit this after his court appearances next month.

How do you know he is not a rapist? If he/they raped her then he actually is a rapist.

Just because you are a fan of the team, it does not have to mean that you dismiss the possibility that this was rape (even though he is one of your/our boys now).

This is an extremely important topic on so many levels and guess where it landed? Right here and its not going anywhere for the time being so you may have to just deal with it instead making believe that it does not exist.

You keep accusing Forum Members of excusing the possibility of Rape based purely on Homerism. This is highly offensive and you have no right to accuse anyone of such a thing. Martin this needs to stop!

He said that he is not a rapist? How does he know that? Looks like you guys are having a hard time swallowing this but as I said, its here and its important for people to know about it and for there to be a much needed awareness.

You had the nerve to say that she knew what she was getting into as if somehow that makes it her fault which is beyond alarming. You should retract that and never say such a thing again.

You and Eny seemed to have rushed to his defense without a clue ... that is either homerism cause he is our boy or plain ignorant.

The point is that she was in fact in a long term sexual relationship with Rose that wasn't a monogamous relationship based on both of their descriptions. They weren't sharing an apartment and doing daily mundane activities together. This entire thing has 2 sides to it and it's not so cut and dry.

Everyone should read the full Complaint and then read all of the Texts from ALL the parties involved.

https://www.dailyherald.com/assets/pdf/DA139354827.pdf

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:

mreinman wrote:

EnySpree wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

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.

Rose might be a piece of **** but rapist not so much....

As far as fan shield? I'm quite sick of you and this topic. You can think whatever you want about Rose but don't try to insinuate we are ok with rape just because we are a fan of the team. That's enough.

Might be time to lock this thread before this gets out of hand. We can revisit this after his court appearances next month.

How do you know he is not a rapist? If he/they raped her then he actually is a rapist.

Just because you are a fan of the team, it does not have to mean that you dismiss the possibility that this was rape (even though he is one of your/our boys now).

This is an extremely important topic on so many levels and guess where it landed? Right here and its not going anywhere for the time being so you may have to just deal with it instead making believe that it does not exist.

You keep accusing Forum Members of excusing the possibility of Rape based purely on Homerism. This is highly offensive and you have no right to accuse anyone of such a thing. Martin this needs to stop!

He said that he is not a rapist? How does he know that? Looks like you guys are having a hard time swallowing this but as I said, its here and its important for people to know about it and for there to be a much needed awareness.

You had the nerve to say that she knew what she was getting into as if somehow that makes it her fault which is beyond alarming. You should retract that and never say such a thing again.

You and Eny seemed to have rushed to his defense without a clue ... that is either homerism cause he is our boy or plain ignorant.

First off you are trying to put words in people's mouths and assume what people are thinking. I've NEVER said it was her fault if she was indeed raped. There has been no determination that she was raped so far. No criminal investigation is ongoing at this time. All that we know is that there is a civil suit going on.

The point is that she was in fact in a long term sexual relationship with Rose that wasn't a monogamous relationship based on both of their descriptions. They weren't sharing an apartment and doing daily mundane activities together. This entire thing has 2 sides to it and it's not so cut and dry.

Everyone should read the full Complaint and then read all of the Texts from ALL the parties involved.

https://www.dailyherald.com/assets/pdf/DA139354827.pdf

Eny was pretty much concluding that he is not a rapist when he has no clue (and nor do we). Did I put words in his mouth?

This was one of your quotes:

She DID know he was like that and yet she still dealt with him. Not in a normal everyday relationship but a purely sexual relationship! They weren't doing laundry together and hittin up flew markets on the weekends!!! They weren't taking each other to meet the family and planning for a future together! She knew exactly what he wanted and she was fine with it. There was nothing normal about it.

Feel free to explain that away ...

I don't freakin care what kind of relationship that she and rose had! If she did not want to do his freinds then she has a right not to. She told him no again and again and again and all of the sudden she is drunk and not answering the door and boom! She gets nailed for something that she repeadedly resisted under heavy pressure. Now what actually transpired that night? Gonna be hard to ever truly know but Rose is gonna have a nightmare getting a Jury to let him off.

He also tried repeatedly to get her to do sex videos for him but she was also not comfortable with it. These girls are starstruck and its easily for athletes to take advantage of them. Look all those gold diggers that came after cosby (PUKE!!!!!!!!!!!).

At least this girl put up a fight and certainly tried to not give in to this sicko.

https://thinkprogress.org/derrick-rose-rape-case-2182c16b55e2#.e8sf837na

Trying to understand. So you want everyone to give this women the benefit of the doubt and not call her irresponsible, loose, illicit, or an extortionist? Because, as you say, no one knows what really happened. But your quick to call someone a Rapist from just a couple of excerpts released by the plaintiffs attorney? The same attorney, who's client is trying to collect 21 Million dollars and is pushing for a settlement? Which btw, usually happens when an attorney employs the strategy of releasing shocking personal accusations of the defendant. And why do you keep accussing all those may suggest he is innocent until proven guilty, as Homer's? Why are you so quick to call him a rapist? Because he is young? Pro Athlete? Involved in lifestyle you don't agree with? Or is it something else? And stop hiding behind the "No one deserves to be raped" cop out statement. I dont think anyone here is saying anything close to that.