Peyton Manning sex assault allegations

[jvan1973]

Just now, General_Hux said:

Should have shopped around!  Honestly though, the way some adults drive these days it makes me think that the risk management industry has it all backwards!

I did shop around.   I've been worth nationwide since I was 18.   Having the policy that long with no claims they give me pretty good rates.   But with youngsters they hammered me

[Cynjin]

5 minutes ago, General_Hux said:

Acutally, they steadily retreat every year after they turn 18 assuming there haven't been any losses, but what do I know...I've only been in that industry for 15 years. 

 

Are you saying that Peyton had "affluenza"? 

 

That would depend on what insurance company you are with, some do, some do not, but what do I know I have only been paying for 2 or 3 teenage/20 year old drivers for the past 6 years.

 

As to the bolded......what?

[General_Hux]

4 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

Depending on what happened, which I do not know, some in the NFL have done worse.  That doesn't mean that Manning should be completely excused, but I am not going to put 100% faith in what either the plaintiff's lawyers have to say or what a journalist wannabe that passes himself off as being black has to say.

That Shaun King fellow does appear to be a mess, doesn't he? 

[ÅÐØNϧ 1]

4 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

He gave her a boatload of money.    Why didn't she press charges? 

 

She had the world by the balls .

[Cynjin]

Just now, General_Hux said:

That Shaun King fellow does appear to be a mess, doesn't he? 

 

Yes he does.

[bayone]

53 minutes ago, oldunclemark said:

•       Its also amazing how other 'fans' on reflex attack someone they dont know..
• We're going to have to make our own judgements because Peyton isnt going to comment further.
• He cant. He already made that mistake once..

 

...I just think its unfair to bring it up again now...with the new outrage I'm hearing on radio and TV from those who didn't know what has been public knowledge......This case was settled.

 

Among the things I dont know is whether one of the 6 women in the Tennessee lawsuit is the person who sued Peyton twice?

No names of plaintiffs given

 

just

 

multiple "Jane Doe" plaintiffs alleged the university created a "hostile sexual environment" favoring student-athletes. Cited in the lawsuit? The alleged incident in 1996 between Peyton Manning and a former athletics trainer.

 

Manning's name showing up in the new Title IX lawsuit is simply a logical inclusion of an incident involving a player and a female employee in an attempt to establish a pattern of behavior by an athletics department.

 

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25484255/peyton-manning-incident-cited-in-tennessee-title-ix-lawsuit

 

[jvan1973]

3 minutes ago, General_Hux said:

Indeed, that's a very good question.  Methinks if it was another player on the teammate who wasn't scion of wealthy and well known former NFL QB, she would have handled it differently.  Like I said earlier, she's a real piece of work.  But he was stupid, and it cost him. 

She would have still sued the school.    She got 300 grand from UT

[General_Hux]

Just now, Cynjin said:

 

That would depend on what insurance company you are with, some do, some do not, but what do I know I have only been paying for 2 or 3 teenage/20 year old drivers for the past 6 years.

 

As to the bolded......what?

That's why you shop around, I always encourage that. 

 

"Affluenza"...was all over the internet a few weeks ago...basically it was a defense used by a teenager from an affluent family in Texas who did something stupid (can't recall the severity of the crime, but it wasn't petty).  The idea was that he had been so sheltered in his upbringing that he didn't know right from wrong, and didn't understand the consequences of his actions.  Pretty freaking crazy if you think about it!

[Cynjin]

Just now, General_Hux said:

That's why you shop around, I always encourage that. 

 

"Affluenza"...was all over the internet a few weeks ago...basically it was a defense used by a teenager from an affluent family in Texas who did something stupid (can't recall the severity of the crime, but it wasn't petty).  The idea was that he had been so sheltered in his upbringing that he didn't know right from wrong, and didn't understand the consequences of his actions.  Pretty freaking crazy if you think about it!

 

Oh, okay.  I'm not sure affluenza applies in this case.

 

I probably should shop around, I haven't in a while.  

[bababooey]

2 minutes ago, General_Hux said:

That's why you shop around, I always encourage that. 

 

"Affluenza"...was all over the internet a few weeks ago...basically it was a defense used by a teenager from an affluent family in Texas who did something stupid (can't recall the severity of the crime, but it wasn't petty).  The idea was that he had been so sheltered in his upbringing that he didn't know right from wrong, and didn't understand the consequences of his actions.  Pretty freaking crazy if you think about it!

That guy killed people drunk driving. Again, we are talking about a 19 year old bare butt in the locker room.

[General_Hux]

1 minute ago, Cynjin said:

 

Oh, okay.  I'm not sure affluenza applies in this case.

 

I probably should shop around, I haven't in a while.  

Affluenza should never apply, it's completely absurd! 

[General_Hux]

1 minute ago, bababooey said:

That guy killed people drunk driving. Again, we are talking about a 19 year old bare butt in the locker room.

Reading comprehension....emotions have totally ruined what should be a level-headed discussion.  I never compared the offenses. 

[bababooey]

2 minutes ago, General_Hux said:

Reading comprehension....emotions have totally ruined what should be a level-headed discussion.  I never compared the offenses. 

But you're comparing a murderer's defense to Peyton Manning's locker room incident by insinuating they "suffer" from the same affliction despite us knowing Peyton to be a model citizen for the last two decades.

[ÅÐØNϧ 1]

2 minutes ago, General_Hux said:

Affluenza should never apply, it's completely absurd! 

 

I agree 

 

 

One 16-year-old drove drunk, ran a red light and crashed into a pregnant woman's car, killing her and her unborn child. Another drunken teenager rammed a pickup truck into a crowd of people assisting a stranded driver, killing four.

Jaime Arellano went to prison. Ethan Couch went free.

The defense was the rich kid did'nt know right from wrong based on his affluent upbringing total nonsense but was bought hook line an sinker .

 

 

[General_Hux]

9 minutes ago, bababooey said:

But you're comparing a murderer's defense to Peyton Manning's locker room incident by insinuating they "suffer" from the same affliction despite us knowing Peyton to be a model citizen for the last two decades.

For God's sake...no...you made that leap.  Simply put, it's a manifestation of the idea that someone who is young and has been insulated from the struggles faced by average people cannot possibly be responsible for the stupid things they do because they don't understand consequences.  This idea is just about as old as time itself.  "Affluenza" is just the funny word of the day to describe it. 

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, bababooey said:

according to her lawyer. she never said there was physical contact made until 2013. keep trying.

 

I never said there was physical contact.     The two stories I read said Peyton tried to claim that he was mooning someone else,  and said another teammate would back his claim.    But the teammate did NOT back Peyton's claim and said it didn't happen.

 

[Restored]

1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I never said there was physical contact.     The two stories I read said Peyton tried to claim that he was mooning someone else,  and said another teammate would back his claim.    But the teammate did NOT back Peyton's claim and said it didn't happen.

 

 

So he lied about which person he mooned when he was 19. Call the police and arrest him now.

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, jvan1973 said:

Peyton didn't ruin her career.  She outed herself by filing the lawsuit.  As had been pointed out multiple times,   her name isn't in the book.  Second,   she never claimed having her face sat on until years later n. Why is that?  Why didn't she press charges?  

 

She has been involved in a few lawsuits since this incident.   I would do a bit of reading on the subject if you really want to know the known facts.

 

Whatever peyton did,   he shouldn't have done.  But it wasn't sexual assault and it surely didn't ruin her life and career

 

She's lost two jobs, both because of this.       She shouldn't have lost either.

 

These incidents certainly didn't help her career.

 

[bababooey]

3 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I never said there was physical contact.     The two stories I read said Peyton tried to claim that he was mooning someone else,  and said another teammate would back his claim.    But the teammate did NOT back Peyton's claim and said it didn't happen.

 

According to her lawyer who was paid to write the statement.

[Restored]

3 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

She's lost two jobs, both because of this.       She shouldn't have lost either.

 

These incidents certainly didn't help her career.

 

 

Remember, it was HER decision to file the defamation suit against Manning concerning the book when:

 

A. He didn't name her at all in the book.

B. He apologized for said incident in the book.

 

But go ahead and please tell me how she had her entire career ruined when Manning published a book that didn't even name her.

 

[bababooey]

11 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

She's lost two jobs, both because of this.       She shouldn't have lost either.

 

These incidents certainly didn't help her career.

 

When you sue a school you're obviously not going to continue to work there. She made 300K from UT plus jewelry in the form of a bowl watch and a championship ring, plus an undisclosed amount from the Mannings. Losing two jobs over it is a ridiculous claim even coming from you.

 

http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/peyton-manning-newest-target-of-fake-internet-outrage-brigade-021316

 

Quote

Nondisclosure agreements are typically drafted to ensure that no one ever has to acknowledge that he or she did anything wrong. Regardless, the trainer filed a lawsuit, claiming that despite the fact that Manning didn't name her in the book and said his behavior was inappropriate, everyone at her new place of employment was now aware of her past history and it was causing problems for her at work. (I would have loved to have argued the other side of this case. "Really? So everyone on your new college campus read Peyton Manning's book and even though you weren't named in it and it was a couple of paragraphs from a several hundred page book, they identified you as the trainer in question from a decade ago? And now you can't do your job? If you really wanted to move on from a 1996 prank wouldn't you, you know, NOT FILE A LAWSUIT NAMING YOURSELF AS THE UNNAMED TRAINER FROM HIS BOOK." But maybe this makes too much sense.)

 

Mayber her vulgar facebook posts and living in the past haven't helped her career.

https://mobile.twitter.com/lauralmonroe33/status/698889706315128832

 

Not to mention she changed her story 17 years later from a visual to a physical assault.

http://www.si.com/nfl/2016/02/14/peyton-manning-lawsuit-sexual-harassment-documents-tennessee

 

Stick to the Colts forum you at least know some x's and o's I'll give you that.

[General_Hux]

6 minutes ago, Restored said:

 

Remember, it was HER decision to file the defamation suit against Manning concerning the book when:

 

A. He didn't name her at all in the book.

B. He apologized for said incident in the book.

 

But go ahead and please tell me how she had her entire career ruined when Manning published a book that didn't even name her.

 

You do realize that he could still be sued for defamation WITHOUT naming her specifically, right?  There's no requirement to name someone. 

[bababooey]

1 minute ago, General_Hux said:

You do realize that he could still be sued for defamation WITHOUT naming her specifically, right?  There's no requirement to name someone. 

He's not saying you can't, he's saying she didn't lose her second job because of this.

[Restored]

17 minutes ago, General_Hux said:

You do realize that he could still be sued for defamation WITHOUT naming her specifically, right?  There's no requirement to name someone. 

 

But it's not the reason why she lost her second job like King tried to insinuate.She magically forgot how to work once Manning published that book.

[jvan1973]

40 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

She's lost two jobs, both because of this.       She shouldn't have lost either.

 

These incidents certainly didn't help her career.

 

I don't know if she should have lost them or not.   She has lost a few jobs since then as well.    She has also filed several other lawsuits.  But the Manning's had nothing to do with her losing her jobs.  Like I've said before,    you need to read other articles other than the king piece.

[Surge89]

57 minutes ago, ÅÐØNϧ 1 said:

 

I agree 

 

 

One 16-year-old drove drunk, ran a red light and crashed into a pregnant woman's car, killing her and her unborn child. Another drunken teenager rammed a pickup truck into a crowd of people assisting a stranded driver, killing four.

Jaime Arellano went to prison. Ethan Couch went free.

The defense was the rich kid did'nt know right from wrong based on his affluent upbringing total nonsense but was bought hook line an sinker .

 

 

 

I'm very glad that people know the truth of that case.  Accountability seems to be lost in the US when you can literally be too rich to commit a crime.

 

There was a comedian... I think it was Hughley if I recall correctly that said it perfectly.  If this dumb teenage kid can suffer from Affluenza then can we all claim brokelepsy?

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, bababooey said:

According to her lawyer who was paid to write the statement.

 

No.    According to the young man himself.

 

[bababooey]

1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

No.    According to the young man himself.

 

In her lawyer's "statement of facts".

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, jvan1973 said:

I don't know if she should have lost them or not.   She has lost a few jobs since then as well.    She has also filed several other lawsuits.  But the Manning's had nothing to do with her losing her jobs.  Like I've said before,    you need to read other articles other than the king piece.

 

The Mannings had nothing to do with her losing her jobs?     How in the world can you write such a sentence?

 

She lost her job at Tennessee as part of the settlement.

 

She lost her job in Florida after the book came out and she was identified.

 

None of this would've happened if not for the Mannings.     I don't know why in the world you'd be defending them?

 

 

[NewColtsFan]

 

Sports Illustrated has now done some digging....      And it looks worse for the Mannings....

 

I have no doubt this will mean nothing to those who support the Mannings.   

 

http://www.si.com/nfl/2016/02/14/peyton-manning-lawsuit-sexual-harassment-documents-tennessee?xid=nl_siextra

[bababooey]

7 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

The Mannings had nothing to do with her losing her jobs?     How in the world can you write such a sentence?

 

She lost her job at Tennessee as part of the settlement.

 

She lost her job in Florida after the book came out and she was identified.

 

None of this would've happened if not for the Mannings.     I don't know why in the world you'd be defending them?

 

 

Check out my post above from 2 hours ago. 

[bababooey]

6 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Sports Illustrated has now done some digging....      And it looks worse for the Mannings....

 

I have no doubt this will mean nothing to those who support the Mannings.   

 

http://www.si.com/nfl/2016/02/14/peyton-manning-lawsuit-sexual-harassment-documents-tennessee?xid=nl_siextra

I literally posted this article twice in this thread to show that she changed her story from visual to physical contact 17 years later.

[NewColtsFan]

2 minutes ago, bababooey said:

I literally posted this article twice in this thread to show that she changed her story from visual to physical contact 17 years later.

 

And yet you don't seem to realize that the story is not helpful to the Mannings.

 

You focus on one factoid change and nothing else.     The Mannings look worse from this article,  not better.

 

[bababooey]

Just now, NewColtsFan said:

 

And yet you don't seem to realize that the story is not helpful to the Mannings.

 

You focus on one factoid change and nothing else.     The Mannings look worse from this article,  not better.

 

Makes the victim look less sympathetic as well when she changes her story.

[Qwiz]

On February 14, 2016 at 3:03 PM, crazycolt1 said:

If he did what was reported calling it a sexual assault is a stretch. I wouldn't call sticking your butt cheeks in someones face a sexual assault. Sorry Qwiz, you can go stand on the soapbox with ViriLudant.

What the hell is wrong with you? I've tried to play nice but I'm fed up with your bull. If you don't know the definition of sexual assault that's your problem. Look it up and get back to me when you find out what the hell youre talking about. Until then don't quote my posts with your bull. Your god Peyton Manning isn't beyond human foolishness, Crazy. Report this post if you want to as well. I'm done biting my tongue dealing with the hypocritical fanatics on this site. 

[Malakai432]

2 hours ago, bababooey said:

When you sue a school you're obviously not going to continue to work there. She made 300K from UT plus jewelry in the form of a bowl watch and a championship ring, plus an undisclosed amount from the Mannings. Losing two jobs over it is a ridiculous claim even coming from you.

 

http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/peyton-manning-newest-target-of-fake-internet-outrage-brigade-021316

 

 

Mayber her vulgar facebook posts and living in the past haven't helped her career.

https://mobile.twitter.com/lauralmonroe33/status/698889706315128832

 

Not to mention she changed her story 17 years later from a visual to a physical assault.

http://www.si.com/nfl/2016/02/14/peyton-manning-lawsuit-sexual-harassment-documents-tennessee

 

Stick to the Colts forum you at least know some x's and o's I'll give you that.

 

Ahahahaha, she seems like a lovely woman.........

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/lauralmonroe33/status/698889706315128832

[Cynjin]

38 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Sports Illustrated has now done some digging....      And it looks worse for the Mannings....

 

I have no doubt this will mean nothing to those who support the Mannings.   

 

http://www.si.com/nfl/2016/02/14/peyton-manning-lawsuit-sexual-harassment-documents-tennessee?xid=nl_siextra

 

Okay, I have no idea what happened between the two parties, but all that article did was make the trainer look worse.  It shows that she changed her story, while appears that Manning has been consistent in his.

[Cynjin]

36 minutes ago, QwizBoy said:

What the hell is wrong with you? I've tried to play nice but I'm fed up with your bull. If you don't know the definition of sexual assault that's your problem. Look it up and get back to me when you find out what the hell youre talking about. Until then don't quote my posts with your bull. Your god Peyton Manning isn't beyond human foolishness, Crazy. Report this post if you want to as well. I'm done biting my tongue dealing with the hypocritical fanatics on this site. 

 

Could you give a definition of sexual assault?  Because from what I have read it ranges anywhere from trying to give a kiss to a girl, that doesn't want to be kissed, to rape.  Also, from other stories I have read it would include consensual sex that the girl regrets the next day.  So if you have a good concise definition that everyone could reasonably agree with, that would be great.

[Malakai432]

7 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

Could you give a definition of sexual assault?  Because from what I have read it ranges anywhere from trying to give a kiss to a girl that doesn't want to be kissed to rape.  Also, from other stories I have read it would include consensual sex that the girl regrets the next day.  So if you have a good concise definition that everyone could reasonably agree with, that would be great.

http://www.justice.gov/ovw/sexual-assault#sa

 

WHAT IS SEXUAL ASSAULT?

Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape.

 

 

Pending on if he did possibly lay his junk on her head that could be considered fondling. That being said something like "mooning," someone could probably just be considered public indecency, kind of like exposure, ect.  

[Cynjin]

1 minute ago, Malakai432 said:

http://www.justice.gov/ovw/sexual-assault#sa

 

WHAT IS SEXUAL ASSAULT?

Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape.

 

It would be great if that was consistently use in the court system.

 

So what Manning may have done would not be sexual assault, but may fall in the range of rude behavior to assault.