Has the statute of limitations run out for Peyton's sexual assault?

[cdumler7]

The writer of this article really has no room to be saying the things that he is with the pile of lies that have come up about him and his cover ups.

More Damning Details Emerge About Black Lives Matter Activist’s Hate Crime Claim

 

[SoCalWizFan]

I guess whoever wrote the article and it seems is extremely butthurt over cam Newton being humbled in the SB.

While I think the grand love for Manning by the media has been puke inducing, I do find it funny about the timing of it. I have a funny feeling if cam won and everyone in the espn PC media were singing his praises, this article would not have been written. Then again, who knows? May be me.

I do remember there were some things being said about Manning being a swinger etc. I do remember tiger Woods being his guest on the sidelines during a Monday night game in Miami. That was just a couple weeks before everything came down on Tiger.

Just saying

I was saying that tongue-in-cheek. The columnist claims he is black but evidence suggests otherwise. No doubt this is directly related to the criticism incurred by Newton & the reporter (i.e. blogger) says as much. The situation is certainly not something to be taken lightly. However - these guys motives are less than honorable & I have no doubt that he has spent the past week digging up as much dirt as possible on Manning. What a waste of a human being.

 

[Fencer]

Hurley: With Peyton Manning Story, Is It Too Much To Ask For Basic Human Decency?

And, much worse, many people have gone out of their way to discredit the victim.

I’ve seen her referred to as a someone who is overly litigious, as if filing a lawsuit and losing her job at her alma mater, the school for which she worked for nearly a decade, was her dream.

I’ve seen people attack the writer for being a race baiter, as if the writer’s background somehow invalidated the court documents, which speak loudly enough on their own.

Travis left out the part where Malcolm Saxon refused to go along with the “mooning” fiction and, as a result, lost his eligibility as a student athlete.

He also omitted the part where two University of Tennessee staff members offered the victim an opportunity to instead blame a black athlete for the assault.

All of that sworn testimony goes out the window? Saxon’s letter to Manning — the one in which the former teammate wrote to Manning “You have shown no mercy or grace to this lady who was on her knees seeing if you had a stress fracture” and “Your celebrity doesn’t mean that you can treat folks this way” — no longer exists?

 

[cdumler7]

Forcing someone to touch your genitals with their face would certainly fall under the category of sexual assault. According to her, he didn't wave his ass around as you said, he intentionally put his ass, taint, and balls in her head/face. Regardless of his sexual intentions this would qualify as sexual assault.

I am pretty surprised at the general consensus of the board that this was no big deal. I am also surprised that it has been pretty common to blame the victim here as if she was blowing something out of proportion. Regardless of the author's intentions and history, what Manning did was a pretty shitty thing to do.

It is not so much that it is not a big deal it is right now all we have heard is her side of the story. Rarely is one side of the story completely objective. Look at the writer of the article who claims to be a black male who had a hate crime done against him while at UK. Turns out he has 2 white parents and the so called hate crime where a group of men beat him was an angry boy friend that punched him after Shaun King had pushed his girl friend up against a wall and threatened to break her neck. All of that supported by a police report and many witnesses. So if we only heard King's side of the story we would view him as a major victim that we cannot believe such hate is still in the world. If we actually see the full situation we realize he is not such a great guy.
Throw in Manning and this woman had problems from day 1 with each other. It would not surprise me if either side was lying about the incident or exaggerating. A great example that was not included in this article is that this woman signed an affidavit in 1996 (meaning she signed this under oath) that there was no actual contact. It wasn't until 2003 that she actually made the claim that he did make contact with her. So it went from her swearing that it was him mooning her to then him putting his genitals on her. First sworn statement happened when Manning had no money. Second happened when he had already made millions in the NFL. So yes it casts doubt on the situation and makes me want to wait for more information instead of just this one sided story by a man known for blowing things out of proportion and trying to incite people to jump to conclusions.

 

[sonnyblack65]

Forcing someone to touch your genitals with their face would certainly fall under the category of sexual assault. According to her, he didn't wave his ass around as you said, he intentionally put his ass, taint, and balls in her head/face. Regardless of his sexual intentions this would qualify as sexual assault.

I am pretty surprised at the general consensus of the board that this was no big deal. I am also surprised that it has been pretty common to blame the victim here as if she was blowing something out of proportion. Regardless of the author's intentions and history, what Manning did was a pretty shitty thing to do.

Yeah I'm sure if it was done to their daughter , wife or gf they would have no problem. If some motherfucker put their genitals in someone I love's face, I would injure that fool severly

 

[Fencer]

The writer of this article really has no room to be saying the things that he is with the pile of lies that have come up about him and his cover ups.

Why?

Do you have a problem with his reporting? (He's quoting public court documents, and nobody has come forward to say he's misquoting or fabricating them.)

Do you have a problem with his opinion? If so, why don't you form one of your own and tell us what it is?

What else other than reporting and conclusions based on the reporting is there to object to?

 

[Fencer]

If some motherfucker put their genitals in someone I love's face, I would injure that fool severly

Truth be told, I question my ability to injure a professional football player severely. I might settle for harsh but nonviolent forms of retribution.

 

[NWPATSFAN]

For Peyton's sake I sure hope he didn't destroy his shoe box sized cell phone from "96".

 

[Davis_Mike]

Truth be told, I question my ability to injure a professional football player severely. I might settle for harsh but nonviolent forms of retribution.

^^The beta male has spoken.

 

[SoCalWizFan]

Why?

Do you have a problem with his reporting? (He's quoting public court documents, and nobody has come forward to say he's misquoting or fabricating them.)

Do you have a problem with his opinion? If so, why don't you form one of your own and tell us what it is?

What else other than reporting and conclusions based on the reporting is there to object to?

Are you taking this high & mighty stance because this is Manning & because others have ripped Brady & the Pats recently? I really question your sincerity on this one.

I really don't care about the team, player, etc. I am mainly taking issue on this one since it happened almost 20 years ago & the writer is a complete joke IMO. He is on an all out witch hunt on Manning since his beloved Cam Newton was criticized recently. Please tell me that your motivation for starting this thread had nothing to do with the name & team of the player in question.

 

[sonnyblack65]

Truth be told, I question my ability to injure a professional football player severely. I might settle for harsh but nonviolent forms of retribution.

we are from 2 different schools

 

[Davis_Mike]

Why?

Do you have a problem with his reporting? (He's quoting public court documents, and nobody has come forward to say he's misquoting or fabricating them.)

Do you have a problem with his opinion? If so, why don't you form one of your own and tell us what it is?

What else other than reporting and conclusions based on the reporting is there to object to?

Ask yourself this: What was the point in publishing this decades old, settled matter?

 

[Fencer]

^^The beta male has spoken.

Shucks. You found me out.

 

[Mondo Jay]

The answer to the OP's question is yes. Google is pretty amazing. My guess is that the question must have been rhetorical and the OP had another agenda.

 

[Fencer]

we are from 2 different schools

No doubt. I've placed a lot of hurt on powerful people, but it wasn't of the physical variety.

Consensual BDSM excepted, of course.

 

[Davis_Mike]

Shucks. You found me out.

It was quite obvious. You showed all the signs. Jealousy, envy, hate... of another sucessful male. That post just made the conclusion final.

 

[Broncos6482]

Why?

Do you have a problem with his reporting? (He's quoting public court documents, and nobody has come forward to say he's misquoting or fabricating them.)

Do you have a problem with his opinion? If so, why don't you form one of your own and tell us what it is?

What else other than reporting and conclusions based on the reporting is there to object to?

Yes, I do. Because he's not interested in facts, he's pushing a narrative. He didn't bother mentioning that this is the woman's side of the story only. He uses words like "court documents" to make it seem like it's some kind of judgment on Manning, that all of it is known facts.

But it's not. It's the woman's version of events. Maybe that's exactly how it happened and Manning is a scumbag. Or maybe if we had Manning's "court documents" that tell his side of the story we'd have an entirely different narrative. Maybe Manning has witnesses that back up his side of the story that we don't know about because we haven't seen it.

Then you see that Shaun King is a liar, and he is a bigtime defender of Cam Newton, and he definitely has an agenda, and you have to call into question the angle of his story. I mean, this whole incident wasn't exactly a secret. It's been on Manning's wikipedia page for crying out loud. King wants you to believe that the whole thing was swept under the rug because Manning is white, when the reality is this is an old story that happened long before twitter and facebook could make something like this go viral.

 

[Fencer]

The answer to the OP's question is yes. Google is pretty amazing. My guess is that the question must have been rhetorical and the OP had another agenda.

Guilty as charged, for the most part.

The exception is that I didn't immediately realize that checking the statute of limitation for actual r*pe would both be easy and might conclusively answer my question in the affirmative (as per my more recent post when I figured that out).

 

[cdumler7]

Why?

Do you have a problem with his reporting? (He's quoting public court documents, and nobody has come forward to say he's misquoting or fabricating them.)

Do you have a problem with his opinion? If so, why don't you form one of your own and tell us what it is?

What else other than reporting and conclusions based on the reporting is there to object to?

He is publishing one side of the story to sway people to his side of the argument. If he cared about actual reporting he would report both sides but he has an agenda. If you read anything this guy writes he has an agenda behind it. He is part of the reason that there was so much violence in St. Louis after the whole Brown incident. This is a guy that I have no respect for. So yes I do have a problem with what he wrote. If he cared about the story he would look into both sides of it instead of just everything that supports her side.

My wife and I both do counseling and this would be like us only listening to one spouse and how they see the situation. If we did that then the other person would look like a complete monster. When you take the time to get both sides then you can begin to fully understand the entirety of the situation.

 

[Fencer]

King wants you to believe that the whole thing was swept under the rug because Manning is white,

I'll confess to missing that part.