Jump to content

NFL Draft, Scouting, and Free Agent Talk

Draft, Scouting and FA Discussions

8,193 topics in this forum

    • 5 replies
    • 1,104 views
  1. WR Help - Why Not CRUZ 1 2

    • 44 replies
    • 1,109 views
    • 15 replies
    • 701 views
    • 7 replies
    • 356 views
    • 7 replies
    • 594 views
  2. WR Board

    • 8 replies
    • 836 views
  3. WR - Justin Blackmon

    • 15 replies
    • 3,323 views
    • 10 replies
    • 1,337 views
  4. Wow Penny went #27

    • 12 replies
    • 441 views
    • 3 replies
    • 447 views
    • 13 replies
    • 538 views
    • 19 replies
    • 1,321 views
    • 18 replies
    • 595 views
    • 28 replies
    • 897 views
  5. Would you...

    • 8 replies
    • 643 views
    • 29 replies
    • 488 views
    • 37 replies
    • 1,275 views
  6. Would You Trade Up...

    • 6 replies
    • 729 views
  7. Would you Trade up?

    • 21 replies
    • 813 views
    • 8 replies
    • 741 views
    • 28 replies
    • 1,049 views
    • 44 replies
    • 1,835 views
    • 19 replies
    • 1,423 views
    • 40 replies
    • 2,833 views
    • 17 replies
    • 950 views
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • SEASON TICKETS

    2019 Season Tickets On Sale Now! Visit Colts.com to learn more.
  • Posts

    • Yep. Up until that neck injury I don’t think manning missed a snap his entire career here.
    • Andrew has had 3 maybe 4 injuries since the beginning of his career, manning only missed one season here. So no worries the bad luck was all Bob's. 
    • that guy is too short, has no wheels, and has to take a time out after every 6 attempts. will never make it.. nice jugs though
    • The facts.. a hung jury (twice) mistrial with most voters having sided for the alleged accuser/victim... both times.     She (prosecution) didn't drop the charges, the school (judge/jury) did.  She wanted round 3.  She wanted a full yes or no vote (4-1 or 5-0) either way, not we're split 3-2 so we'll just call it against the majority vote and designate as "Not Responsible" because it isn't 4 or more votes either way. - 'Case closed'.     There were questions (and other items) from the accuser that were never allowed in or asked in follow up questioning.  I think one of the changes to the Stanford Title IX hearing rules is to also allow an attorney to be not only in attendance but to also perform all duties of representation.  And an outside group determines what is admissible as questions/evidence, follow questions, etc...     At some level, it did, and many things at Stanford were changed after. At the  minimum, it was a mistrial x2, with no conclusive verdict either way. Then school (not prosecution) drops the case.   So she really needed to report this to both the school, and also the Police.  But with what evidence does she have to convince the LEO?  Guess the gals need some hidden body cam w/audio these days, like many folks do with dash cams (like me and my wife's cars...) and be their own TMZ...   Video, apparently the only way things get rectified anymore...     No worries, at least we know each others positions.  All is good.     Except to have (at some level) differing story from a another high achieving Stanford student about another high achieving Stanford student-   https://www.collegesimply.com/colleges/california/stanford-university/admission/     We don't even know for certain they ever got the FULL story, but articles I've read suggest that the Stanford Panel repressed/disallowed many/most of her interrogating questions and supplemental follow up inquiries to be asked of the accused.  Unless someone directly asks her directly, how could you answer as to whether her whole story was even heard or not?   If you are not truly interested to fully know those answers, then you don't ask.  At least, that's my perspective.  
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...