| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
shontay33
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 471
Back to top |
 Posted: 06/08/19 3:45 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| Shades wrote: |
https://theathletic.com/1016376/2019/06/07/as-the-wnba-investigates-assault-charges-against-riquna-williams-she-remains-with-the-sparks/
| Quote: |
The legal process in Williams’ case could be lengthy.
On Thursday morning, Williams’ lawyer waived the right to a speedy trial and requested a jury trial. The next proceeding is scheduled for July 3, which Williams is not required to attend, Paige confirmed. |
|
This is going to be interesting to see how this case turns out. It may not be resolved for some months. I also found it interesting that they charge her with assault and burglary but yet granted her the option of not having to appear in court. Most people who have charges like that brought against them, have to appear in court. I wonder if it is due to any type of evidence in the case.
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32335
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/08/19 3:46 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I'm against violence of any kind, but I do think there is a difference in a fight between relatively equal sized combatants and between people where one weighs 100 pounds more and has 12" height advantage...which is typically man-woman. I know this is not PC, but that's how I feel.
The biggest negative here, in my mind, is the breaking and entering and obviously being the attacker/instigator. (according to the reports we have been given)
Having served on numerous juries I'm a bit leery of what prosecutors charge vs what actually happened. IMO they often try to 'throw the book' at someone and hope that something will stick. In other words, they over-charge so they hope the jury will at least convict on some of the charges even if not the worst. So that is a large part of the reason I believe in waiting to see what a jury of peers finds before you crucify someone, and as Clay points out, prevent them from working. One of my pet peeves about our justice system is that locking someone up as punishment very rarely allows them to improve or do true restitution for what they did. For many crimes I would much prefer some kind of community service and when appropriate, direct restitution over time to the wronged party.
This is sort of OT but: I know the case of a 30 something year old man who had a car accident in which an 80 year old women was perhaps injured (she was up and walking and saying nothing was wrong right after the accident). She already had a serious illness and died two months later. So the 30 year old, who has 4 young children, was sent to prison for manslaughter for six years. He had a steady job but now he is obviously unable to support them...so the State will now not only have to pay a lot of money for his incarceration, but also a lot of money to support his dependents. And he will forever be a convicted felon. This makes zero sense to me. If you want to punish him, let him go to work during the day and spend nights and weekends in jail...and if you want to give restitution to the lady's family, give some portion of his wages. Obviously this only works if you think he's not a danger to go off and do the same thing over again. ok, I will get off soap box!
_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/08/19 3:46 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| mavcarter wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
I'm not sure why the aggravated assault charge is being called "domestic violence" or what that characterization would add even if it were true, which is unlikely. The fact that Williams was also charged with burglary is definitive evidence that Williams had no domestic right to the premises. (Classic burglary is the breaking and entering into a home that you have no right to enter, at night, with the intent to commit any crime therein.)
Aggravated assault is the mundane legal lingo charge for any sort of physical fight or fisticuffs, which fights have been commonplace in human history all over the world since the beginning of time.
Williams, according to reports, has no criminal record or prior history of violence. People are considered innocent by society's legal system until proven guilty, so why shouldn't they be accorded the same treatment by society's employment system, especially when the charge is a mundane and commonplace one?
Legal proceedings including appeals can take years to conclude. Should an employer deprive a presumed-innocent employee of her livelihood for all this time simply because the the police have charged her with a physical fight in a bar, with a neighbor, with a friend, or with a family member? I think not, unless the crime alleged along with the emplyoyee's history are of such a serious nature that the employee could present a real risk of harm to the workplace. That was the practice in most business organizations that I worked in or advised.
The Sparks have obviously concluded that Williams presents no such risk -- and rationally so, in my opinion. |
Agreed. |
If you agree, let me ask you this;
if this exact situation happened in the NBA:
NBA player has been arrested, charged, and is actually on trial for forcing his way into his ex-girlfriend's house, hitting her her repeatedly in the head and pulling her hair, and then once separated from her and out of the house, going to his car pulling out a gun, setting it on the trunk and threatening the witnesses saying "You'll get all 18".
Would you say the same thing? Would you support that player suiting up in the NBA while his trial was ongoing? Or would you support suspending him until the trial had concluded?
Or even worse, as was the case here, would you support a team signing him as an UFA and playing him while he was on trial, instead of waiting for the trial to conclude and the jury to weigh the evidence? Would not the fact that there was cause enough to put him on trial be reason to not have him suit up until the issue was resolved?
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63761
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/08/19 3:49 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| If there were video evidence of the alleged incidence being played on national television, that would make a big difference. Both the Ray Rice incidence (which was way worse) and the Kareem Hunt incidence (minor) were going to be swept under the rug until TMZ came out with video of each incidence. So the combination of no video evidence (or even a lack of unbiased witnesses being reported) and this not being a major story because WNBA is not a major sport with heavy sponsorship money makes this case not really comparable to the men’s cases.
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
Last edited by Shades on 06/08/19 6:04 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/08/19 3:57 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| myrtle wrote: |
I'm against violence of any kind, but I do think there is a difference in a fight between relatively equal sized combatants and between people where one weighs 100 pounds more and has 12" height advantage...which is typically man-woman. I know this is not PC, but that's how I feel.
|
The problem here is the ex-girlfriend element.
The problems with domestic violence comes from the incidiousness of it. While we don't know if there were psychological manipulations here (and probably weren't based upon first offense, and all that), the league needs to have a strong message about domestic violence to make it clear that it is more than just "men hitting women". And a zero tolerance policy is the only policy acceptable. You get arrested for violence against someone you are or were in a relationship with, you are out until the legal system plays out.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8225
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/08/19 8:23 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| myrtle wrote: |
I'm against violence of any kind, but I do think there is a difference in a fight between relatively equal sized combatants and between people where one weighs 100 pounds more and has 12" height advantage...which is typically man-woman. I know this is not PC, but that's how I feel.
|
The problem here is the ex-girlfriend element.
The problems with domestic violence comes from the incidiousness of it. While we don't know if there were psychological manipulations here (and probably weren't based upon first offense, and all that), the league needs to have a strong message about domestic violence to make it clear that it is more than just "men hitting women". And a zero tolerance policy is the only policy acceptable. You get arrested for violence against someone you are or were in a relationship with, you are out until the legal system plays out. |
You're entitled to hold a bloodthirsty Queen of Hearts "sentence first - verdict afterwards", "off with her head" approach to employee relations, but I'm truly confused by your invidious discrimination based on a purported sexual relationship. Assuming the accused committed the same exact acts against the same victim, what is the difference if the victim is now in a relationship with the accused, or was in a relationship a short time ago, or years ago, or is a relative, or is a complete stranger? The same thing took place. Why should the legal system, to say nothing of a third party employer, treat the same acts differently?
To me, the possibility of a relationship may mitigate the circumstances. Williams may have thought she was entitled to enter the home because she was once welcome there and may even have had a key. I suspect the burglary allegation is simply the usual prosecutorial overcharging.
What's the evidence about who attacked whom once the two women began arguing? Who is physically bigger? Who struck the stronger blows. Who, if anyone, used any sort of bludgeon or weapon? What is the girlfriend's criminal record and history of violence? What is the relationship of the men witnesses to Williams and the other woman, and do they have a motive for testimonial bias against Williams or in favor of the other woman? None of these facts is known to us or the Sparks, and none will be adjudicated until trial and final appeals.
Williams wasn't charged with any legal violation with respect to owning, carrying or brandishing a gun, presumably because all her alleged acts regarding the gun were lawful. So, that issue is a straw man and irrelevant.
The Sparks and Williams' teammates are acting professionally and compassionately and not like an Alice in Wonderland cartoon character:
| Quote: |
Los Angeles guard Riquna Williams is focused on the upcoming season, not her court case.
"I'm just thankful to have the opportunity again, from coach (Derek) Fisher and (general manager) Penny (Toler) and the L.A. organization," she told the AP before the season opener in Las Vegas on Sunday.
"It definitely has not been a distraction, mainly because you have such a positive group in L.A., starting at the top of the organization down to the players. It's such a family feel and the love, you can't help but to move forward from it. Whatever's gonna happen is gonna happen, but at the same time this is my focus."
Williams . . . has appreciated the support from her teammates as well.
"Not that any of them been there before, but they trust me, they fully understand. I'm just thankfully," she said.
. . . .
"The day she showed up she let us know that she was focused, she was committed to being here," coach Derek Fisher said. "What she has had to deal with in the past, we can't control that process, that'll play out, we can't do anything about that. All we can ask of Riquna is that, from the time that she's gotten here, she can control who she is, how she handles herself. She's been focused from the jump. She doesn't appear to be distracted." |
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/08/19 9:07 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I am seriously concerned about how much you are downplaying the concept of domestic abuse, which is a category the assault of an ex-girlfriend falls into. I am sure there are some extreme circumstances where "ex" was so long ago and so unknown to the individual that a case could be made that the relationship is one of relative stranger, but that is 1) not the case here, and 2) not the case in 99.999% of these situations where an ex is attacked.
This is not something that should be hand waved away.
As for why we should treat domestic assault differently than an attack by a stranger? Seriously? Spend some time volunteering with survivors of domestic abuse and get back to me. The damage it does is devastating.
As for the evidence, Williams was the one arrested and charged. In other words, after the police investigation they and the DA concluded that there was enough evidence to take this to trial. She will have ample opportunity to pose all your questions to the jury. But a job is not the government, and a suspension is not a criminal conviction. The mere fact that the police and DA feel that the evidence warrants charges is by far due process enough to meet the threshold of a temporary suspension spending the outcome of her trial.
As I noted before, if I were facing these exact same charges under these same circumstances, I would be immediately suspended pending review (which would await the conclusion of my trial) and unless I was acquitted--and depending on the review perhaps not even then--I would be fired. And that is how it should be.
I mean, do you think Odubel Herrera should also still be suiting up for the Phillies right now until his legal issues are concluded one way or another?
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
NYSports56
Joined: 03 Jul 2018
Posts: 1126
Location: New Jersey, USA
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/08/19 9:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| Assuming the accused committed the same exact acts against the same victim, what is the difference if the victim is now in a relationship with the accused, or was in a relationship a short time ago, or years ago, or is a relative, or is a complete stranger? The same thing took place. Why should the legal system, to say nothing of a third party employer, treat the same acts differently? |
You're kidding, right? Someone makes good on, say a threat of doing bodily damage to someone if he/she leaves a relationship, and that's no worse than random violence? I'm not condoning the random violence, but I can see you've never experienced someone terrorizing you with the threat of violence. Consider yourself fortunate.
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| What's the evidence about who attacked whom once the two women began arguing? Who is physically bigger? Who struck the stronger blows |
.
Again, you've never heard of smaller people intimidating larger people to the point of serious terror?
What is your position on hate crimes? Is someone is beaten and robbed specifically because of race, is it no different than when the motivation is simply robbery?
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8225
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/08/19 10:58 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| I am seriously concerned about how much you are downplaying the concept of domestic abuse |
I'm not downplaying that concept at all.
I'm saying that Williams was not charged with any Florida domestic abuse or domestic violence crime. She was not even charged with the lowest level of a battery crime, which involves hitting or touching another person. (Discussion of "hate crimes" is completely over the top and ridiculously irrelevant.)
Williams was charged merely with an assault crime. An assault does not involve hitting, striking or touching another person (i.e., battery). It only involves a "threat by word" to do violence. Assault is a misdemeanor.
Williams was in fact charged with a one-step more serious type of assault -- aggravated assault, which in addition to a verbal threat must include either a threat with a deadly weapon or with the intent to commit a felony. Again, aggravated assault does not include any actual physical contact, and it is the lowest class of felony in Florida, a third degree felony. Unless the DA can prove Williams had the gun or some other deadly weapon in her hand when she verbally threatened the alleged victim in the house, the aggravated assault charge will fail.
I was further criticizing your position because you seem to think there are different degrees of aggravated assault, or different degrees of punishment therefor, depending on whether the alleged assaulter is or was in some sort of "relationship" with the alleged victim. That's not so under the specific Florida statute at issue.
Most importantly for the bloodlusting Queens of Hearts on this forum, Riquana Williams has not been charged with any crime that involves the physical touching of another person, much less violent touching, nor with any domestic abuse crime. The Sparks likely understand that.
My guess is that, unless the gun was actually involved in the house contrary to the newspaper reporting, Williams will plead to the misdemeanor of simple assault and get a suspended sentence or probation. |
|
NYSports56
Joined: 03 Jul 2018
Posts: 1126
Location: New Jersey, USA
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/09/19 12:36 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| Discussion of "hate crimes" is completely over the top and ridiculously irrelevant. |
Since you asked why the legal system should treat same acts differently because of the relationship with the victim, I didn't think so. That's the exact same argument used to try and strike down hate crime laws. I was just wondering how far that demand for equivalent punishment went.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/09/19 9:55 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Yeah Glenn, you kind of left out the whole Burglary thing.
(2) Burglary is a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life imprisonment or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if, in the course of committing the offense, the offender:
(a) Makes an assault or battery upon any person;
As for any sort of criminal punishment beyond "aggravated assault" I am not sure what you are referring to. My position is that the league needs to send a clear message about not tolerating domestic violence, so they need to act decisively and swiftly anytime there is a player charged with anything that falls under that umbrella (which this case 100% does).
As for not being charged with "domestic violence", please, please, please stop with these strawmen. You are a very intelligent person, so I know that you understand that very few places actually have specific "domestic violence" laws. People get charged with whatever crimes they commit. Odubel Herrera was arrested for "simple assault", but was suspended by MLB under their "domestic violence policy". In nearly all jurisdictions, "domestic violence" is not an escalator of criminal severity. No one here has been arguing that.
It is an escalator of actual severity in the damage it does to victims and the lives it destroys with its webs of manipulation and gaslighting.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11136
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/09/19 10:18 am ::: |
Reply |
|
For me, it comes down to this:
A women's professional sport is less concerned about violence against women than a men's professional sport.
A general manager of a women's professional team is more willing to hire and utilize an athlete accused of violence against women than a general manager of a men's professional team.
A group of women (the WNBA players) are willing to work with a woman accused of violence against another woman, and brandishing a gun. (The fact that no WNBA player has spoken out about this case is stunning.)
A group of women (the Sparks' players) are willing to work with a woman accused of violence against another woman, and brandishing a gun.
And finally, what message is being sent by the WNBA? Clearly, it's beat up your ex, show bystanders a gun and threaten them, and you can get signed by a team and play big minutes. The moral and cultural aspects of the situation are irrelevant compared to the athletic value delivered by the woman who beat up her ex and pulled out a gun.
That's girl power, I guess ... at least to the WNBA.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
NYL_WNBA_FAN
Joined: 28 May 2007
Posts: 14097
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/09/19 10:47 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Has anyone given thought to the possibility that she’s not guilty? I know it seems remote but what if she is? Just putting it out there. She hasn’t been found guilty of anything yet.
_________________
The poster formerly known as LibWNBAFan.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/09/19 11:22 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| NYL_WNBA_FAN wrote: |
| Has anyone given thought to the possibility that she’s not guilty? I know it seems remote but what if she is? Just putting it out there. She hasn’t been found guilty of anything yet. |
Of course. That is what the legal system is for. But she has been charged with these crimes, and she is on trial for it, which means--by definition of our legal system-the state believes that the evidence says she's committed these offenses. That should be enough for a league taking this issue seriously to not play her until the legal system plays out.
Should MLB be playing Odubel Herrera right now? He has only been charged and not found guilty of anything?
Should the NFL have played Aaron Hernandez while he was on trial? He hadn't been found guilty yet. What if he had been acquitted?
A temporary suspension while someone is on trial for a serious offense that runs counter to the league's branding/messaging is not an unreasonable violation of due process, nor of "innocent until proven guilty". It's simply saying, "Because the state is saying it believes you have done these very serious things, it is in the best interest of our league that you don't suit up until the process has played out."
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/09/19 11:46 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I should also add, that while I disagree fully with Glenn's position, he and people who take his stance are not the targets of my exasperation. From our debates in the past, I know he is consistent in his views and would feel the same whether this be WNBA, NBA, NFL, etc. His take is a legitimate (if, imo, wrongly considered) take. I respect that.
My issue is that a lot of the same voices that are so very loud about this issue when it affect other leagues, or other issues that deal with shades of "due process" or "innocent until proven guilty" (like the right for colleges to expell students for sexual misconduct without the same criminal burdens of proof), and take a stance that echoes mine here on those, yet are suspiciously silent now or worse, taken the diametrically opposed stance.
And let me be clear, the voices I'm condemning aren't the ones here on Rebs, since I don't know personally the people in these threads and how they feel. I know Glenn's take just because we have had a ton of great discussions over in 51 through the years. So those here may well also be consistent. But the WNBA itself is the most glaringly obvious perpetrator of this. A league that has taken a very progressive stance on these issues in the past and now is suddenly silent. And you can page through many of the player's Twitter feeds and see the Male players in similar situations they have come out against...but silence.
Yeah.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
Last edited by justintyme on 06/09/19 11:48 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Bob Lamm
Joined: 11 Apr 2010
Posts: 5065
Location: New York City
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/09/19 11:47 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Dear justintyme, ClayK, and NYSports56--
I don't want to get involved in the specifics of the arguments here because it's too upsetting. Please know that I support what each of you has been saying. Thanks for speaking out.
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16357
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/09/19 12:15 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
Should the NFL have played Aaron Hernandez while he was on trial? He hadn't been found guilty yet. What if he had been acquitted?
|
Technically Aaron Hernandez died "not guilty." Should that just be the final word on things. Should his estate have no culpability for his victims? Should the NFL pay his estate back pay?
That's where the logic leads if you (not "you" as in justin, btw.) say that a the league can't do anything without a guilty verdict.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8225
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/11/19 6:43 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Intelligent exchanges always help me to sharpen my views, and as a lawyer I always want to get the facts correct in legal cases I comment upon. Accordingly, I have to change what I said above about the specific Florida legal charges against Riquna Williams (RW), which I had based on newspaper reports. Those newspaper reports are incomplete.
I've just spent more than an hour reading every police and court document in this case, all of which are on line, and every Florida statute involved. Here's the accurate story, which I'll paraphrase or quote from the police and court documents and the witness affidavits.
On December 6, 2018, the police went to a home in Pahokee, Florida, occupied or owned by Antonio Wilson and his son Antavios Wilson. Also present in the house at the time was Alkeria Davis, who had been RW's girl friend "on and off for the past 5 years, just recently breaking up 1 month ago."
Alkeria said that she and RW had never been "living together" and that RW "has never became violent before in their past relationship." Because the two women never resided together, whatever crimes RW may have committed do not qualify as "domestic violence" under Florida Statute 741.28, nor is there any history of repeat violence.
RW banged on the door of the house with a skateboard. Alkeria opened it. RW forced her way through the open door and hit Alkeria "multiple times" with "a closed fist" and pulled her hair. (The affidavits do not say what, if anything, Alkeria was doing to RW.) Alkeria's only claimed injury was a "small lump on the side of her head."
Antonio and his son broke up the altercation and took RW outside. RW pulled a gun from her blue Camaro, put it on the trunk and said some threatening words to Antonio but didn't actually do anything, and then drove away.
The the DA officially charged RW with two criminal statute violations. First, burglary under Florida Statute 810.02. The requisite offense intended by the burglary is stated to be "an assault or battery upon Antonio D. Wilson and/or Alkeria Mone Davis." Note that this charge does not specify whether the charge is an assault (threat) or a battery (touching) nor whom it was against. Nor are there individual charges for assault or battery under their separate statutes -- just the burglary violation, which however is a felony.
Secondly, RW was charged with aggravated assault (with a deadly weapon without intent to kill) under Florida Statute 784.021 for the gun threat against Antonio and Antavios Wilson, which is also a felony.
So, as to physical violence crimes, to more accurately re-summarize the actual charges: Riquana Williams has not been charged with any domestic violence crime, with any standalone physical violence (battery) crime, but has been charged with a form of burglary that will require proof of either an assault (verbal threat) or battery (physical touching) against either Alkeria Davis or Antonio Wilson.
This clarification of the legal charges and unproven witness claims against RW, does not change my opinion that the Sparks and WNBA are handling this situation properly.
The only interest of an employer when an employee is involved in a legal matter is to determine whether that employee presents a danger to other employees in the workplace if she remains on the job. The Sparks workplace is tiny, a handful of coaches and administrators and 11 other players. They all know RW personally, some of them probably for years, and they likely are of the opinion that she's never shown any tendency for violence in the workplace. The unproven allegations in the Florida case likely do not change the Sparks' evaluation of her temperament. RW has no criminal record, no history of prior violence even according the former girlfriend, and the unproven acts of physical violence involved, at most, some fist punches and maybe some hair pulling, allegedly resulting in no more than a small bump on the head. In the likely opinion of the Sparks, this one-time incident involving a former girl friend is not enough to change their pre-existing opinion that RW presents no danger to the workplace. |
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/11/19 8:09 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Glenn, you are using a very reductive definition of "domestic violence" that is based solely upon the state of Florida's criminal code. We are not arguing that she should be charged with the crime of "domestic violence". We are saying that this situation falls under the umbrella of what sports leagues have started addressing with their "domestic violence" policies, and that the beating of an ex-girlfriend with whom you have had an ongoing relationship with is commonly understood in that context. One of the major points of this increased awareness of domestic violence is that the law is very bad at defining and protecting people from it. Society is only now grasping the nuances of it, and how these reductive definitions are not helpful. As I noted before Odubel Herrera has only been charged with simple assault, but no one is blinking from calling it "domestic violence", nor has the league paused from suspending him under their "domestic violence policy" (or the Phillies removing his name from team banners and all-star ballots) even though that is not the legal charge.
And we are also noting that the WNBA is lagging behind many of these other leagues in their response to this issue here, when they should be leading the way.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24347
Location: London
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/11/19 9:14 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Just wanted to say that I love that you guys can have a civilised debate about this without becoming assholes or having a go at each other, despite having thoroughly opposing views. Man that seems rare on the internet these days. |
|
so-many-pickles
Joined: 17 May 2018
Posts: 97
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/11/19 9:31 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
The only interest of an employer when an employee is involved in a legal matter is to determine whether that employee presents a danger to other employees in the workplace if she remains on the job. |
Whether or not she presents a danger in the workplace is not the "only interest" of the league. Her contract requires players to "at all times conform their conduct to standards of good citizenship, good moral character, and good sportsmanship."
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63761
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/11/19 10:39 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| Intelligent exchanges always help me to sharpen my views |
That must explain why you’re always hanging out where I am. Well buckle up, buttercup.
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| RW banged on the door of the house with a skateboard. |
Was the skateboard one RW brought with her or one she found on the stoop? If she felt she needed a skateboard to bang on the door, she must felt a need to be very loud and therefore denoting an elevated level of anger.
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| Antonio and his son broke up the altercation and took RW outside. RW pulled a gun from her blue Camaro, put it on the trunk and said some threatening words to Antonio but didn't actually do anything, and then drove away. |
You glossed over the threatening words and you said the articles were incomplete? Was that deliberate on your part? The words were reportedly “You’ll get all 18.” That’s a very threatening claim that shouldn’t be glossed over. It’s a threat to kill. Again, was that deliberate on your part? Another reason such detail in what was said is important is that now they can verify if RW’s gun indeed can use a 18-clip magazine, thereby verifying what the witnesses said.
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| This clarification of the legal charges and unproven witness claims against RW, does not change my opinion that the Sparks and WNBA are handling this situation properly. |
Hey, a couple felony charges, no big deal.
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
The unproven allegations in the Florida case likely do not change the Sparks' evaluation of her temperament. RW has no criminal record, no history of prior violence even according the former girlfriend
|
So if girlfriend can be believed about RW’s history, doesn’t that validate the death-threatening thing that was said? Are we selectively believing the testimony? She could have said worse if she was just out to get RW. All the testimony was honest, even the stuff you glossed over.
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| this one-time incident involving a former girl friend is not enough to change their pre-existing opinion that RW presents no danger to the workplace. |
I honestly think they were more concerned with building the best they could over doing the right thing. Williams had a market value of $80K-$100K before the news came out. They couldn’t afford her at that price. After the news, she can’t expect over vet minimum and what do you know, they can now afford her. If they keep pushing back the trial, she can probably make it through the season without interruption.
I was kind of meh on this topic before, but when I see an attorney deliberately downplay what was done and especially what was said and present a big pile of BS on a platter, it kind of pisses me off.
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66896
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
ucbart
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 2815
Location: New York
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/12/19 8:46 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| mavcarter wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
I'm not sure why the aggravated assault charge is being called "domestic violence" or what that characterization would add even if it were true, which is unlikely. The fact that Williams was also charged with burglary is definitive evidence that Williams had no domestic right to the premises. (Classic burglary is the breaking and entering into a home that you have no right to enter, at night, with the intent to commit any crime therein.)
Aggravated assault is the mundane legal lingo charge for any sort of physical fight or fisticuffs, which fights have been commonplace in human history all over the world since the beginning of time.
Williams, according to reports, has no criminal record or prior history of violence. People are considered innocent by society's legal system until proven guilty, so why shouldn't they be accorded the same treatment by society's employment system, especially when the charge is a mundane and commonplace one?
Legal proceedings including appeals can take years to conclude. Should an employer deprive a presumed-innocent employee of her livelihood for all this time simply because the the police have charged her with a physical fight in a bar, with a neighbor, with a friend, or with a family member? I think not, unless the crime alleged along with the emplyoyee's history are of such a serious nature that the employee could present a real risk of harm to the workplace. That was the practice in most business organizations that I worked in or advised.
The Sparks have obviously concluded that Williams presents no such risk -- and rationally so, in my opinion. |
Agreed. |
If you agree, let me ask you this;
if this exact situation happened in the NBA:
NBA player has been arrested, charged, and is actually on trial for forcing his way into his ex-girlfriend's house, hitting her her repeatedly in the head and pulling her hair, and then once separated from her and out of the house, going to his car pulling out a gun, setting it on the trunk and threatening the witnesses saying "You'll get all 18".
Would you say the same thing? Would you support that player suiting up in the NBA while his trial was ongoing? Or would you support suspending him until the trial had concluded?
Or even worse, as was the case here, would you support a team signing him as an UFA and playing him while he was on trial, instead of waiting for the trial to conclude and the jury to weigh the evidence? Would not the fact that there was cause enough to put him on trial be reason to not have him suit up until the issue was resolved? |
+++++10000000000000000000000000000000000
She should be kicked out of the league. It's clear that Riquana is an inherently bad seed.
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63761
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/12/19 9:02 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Damn, Megdal came through with those videos. Seeing these makes it more difficult to just dismiss things like it was no big deal. They even swear-in the witnesses, which I didn’t know was a thing the cops could do.
So basically the excuse for the inaction from the league is the commissioner hasn’t taken the position yet, and Tatum doesn’t want to make it his call?
Toler’s excuse seems to be “That’s a Florida thing, not a California thing”. Maybe Toler’s decision to sign Williams even after being arrested should be the decision that finally gets her fired.
Magic Johnson’s twitter handle is @MagicJohnson
Sparks PR guy’s twitter handle is @CoachHorowitz13
LA Sparks twitter handle @LA_Sparks
Incoming WNBA Commissioner @CathyEngelbert
Sparks marquee sponsor (apparently owned by Magic Johnson)
is EquiTrust Life Insurance. Can’t find a twitter handle for them.
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
|
|
