I don't know much about him that game for lanky streaks of piss but he seemed awfully good and putting things in holes.
Kobe Bryant - What’s his legacy?
- Thread starter Eboue
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Fair post.
Thanks for the informative post. It generally falls in line with the consensus of what I've read about what could have happened had it gone to court.
If he did do it, justice wasn't served, no matter how much he grew as a person. $6.5 million is nothing for someone in his position. If he did do it, it would be hard to claim that he was rehabilitated based of off his legalese 'apology'.
Despite him being infinitely more flawed than Bryant, I have more respect for Mike Tyson who served his time, even if it wasn't the full sentence.
Hang on - we have no clue but it could as easily be that when he strangled her in 'strangle sex' - his own words, that she decided not to continue.
And stop with the she had sex less than 24 hours after. It's been stated on this thread that traces of other semen were found on her underwear, explained as her grabbing a pair from the wrong pile of laundry by mistake. It is almost easy to see the fans smearing her at the time when you are still doing it.
I disagree. I don't think anyone is upset and I don't think its your job to summarize his statement. People can read it and make their own interpretation. You seem as if your sole purpose is to make other people agree with your interpretation. I think we can all agree that his decision making was not very good on that night, but its a leap to come on here and scream "rapist."
I could cherry pick parts of the quote like you did and spin it for people that weren't familiar with the situation. A line could be easily drawn between "Although I truly believe the encounter between us was consensual" and "I didn't rape this woman." Let his quote and behavior stand on its own stead. If people disagree, so be it, but that doesn't excuse you putting words in his mouth.
The very fact that she didn't want to testify is enough for any reasonably logical person to understand that the water was much muddier than clear. The prosecutors do not need a witness to testify if there is evidence that could clearly convict someone of a crime. Between Kobe and the alleged victim both originally lying to the detectives and changing their stories and questions about both parties, the case was not pursued criminally. None of us know if Kobe raped this woman, but some act as if they know for a fact that a rape occurred. There is no doubt that his behavior on that night tarnishes his legacy and he had to live with that for many years. There is no doubt that night will live with the alleged victim for her whole life. That should be enough for anyone to not move the needle to "completely innocent" or "rapist."
This is how this subject should be discussed, and I agree 100% with the statement above. Surely people can see the difference between "If he did do it, justice wasn't served" and "Kobe is a rapist and got away with it."
First of all, I'd really appreciate it if you dropped the smearing allegations as I was merely pointing out to another poster which arguments the defense would bring forward, and I'd already stated I was wrong about the 24 hours thing before you came in here.
You are clearly still missing the crux of my point based on what you're saying. You're taking her explanation as the facts and how it went down, while that's not what would've brought forward by Bryant's defense, nor would it be the legal reality. Yet you seem to state it as a simple fact, just because you believe her version (which is your good right, I'm not saying it's made up but it is just what it is: her own explanation). The defense would absolutely rip that story to pieces. So don't come in here and lecture me while you yourself are stating simple statements by the accuser as facts. The only fact relevant in court is that she had semen and pubic hair of another man on the panties she wore to her examination the day after the incident - anything else you make of it is your own interpretation, and nothing more.
I dunno that I need to make another disclaimer to say that the above is just what would've been brought forward by defense and not necessarily what I think to be true, but I'll do it anyway in case you falsely accuse me again of something.
I apologise if I misunderstood that you were explaining what the defence would bring forward.
No, I'm not taking her explanation as facts, as I said, the semen was found on her underwear, a fact. I also said 'explained as her grabbing a pair', so, not stated as a fact.
The defence can attempt to rip the stories to pieces but a jury would see the prosecution have the opportunity to put the other side. Please don't lecture me when you are just as capable of misunderstanding what the post said as I can be. Wow, do you need to calm down a touch or what?
Nah, not at all.
Prosecution would have sufficient evidence available to reason the other way yes.
Yeah, in his own defence he originally denied being with her, he also explained how he strangled her. Yeah, the prosecution are going to have it all their own way. Still, never got that far. But hey, he must be pure as the driven snow.
Never said that.
Going by your posts it just seems like you read up on the case, made up your mind on what went down and are now looking at all things through a tunnel vision (i.e. from the accuser's perspective) to fit that narrative.
Might be you're doing it unintentionally, might be I'm wrong, but it certainly feels that way.
I made my mind up that some people shouldn't just attempt to whitewash the history of the case and have certainly countered some of the so called facts and slurring that's taken place. So you might be wrong there and it could feel that way. I definitely don't like the playground tactics some posters employ.
Overall I've felt that the case was one part of his life and said that several times. Maybe you just missed that, it wouldn't be hard in such a lengthy thread I suppose to be kind.
Having had a read through all the facts of the case and the accusations which couldn’t be proven for sure, it’s probably pretty safe to say that had this gone to trial Kobe Bryant would not have been going to prison, and you’d still have the same narrative, that Bryant’s more experienced and costly lawyers would have brought enough reasonable doubt about this girls story to have the case thrown out, and people would be saying he paid his way out of it.
You can view him paying her as an admission of guilt, or you can view it as a relatively uneducated athlete who panicked and thought it was the best way out of the situation. He probably DID think it was consensual at the time and then viewing it through her perspective, saw that he was way more willing than her and may have gone overboard.
there is absolutely no way that this girl did not consent to some of the intimacy between them. It’s naive to think otherwise. There are a lot of similarities between this story and Ronaldo/mayorga.
You can view him paying her as an admission of guilt, or you can view it as a relatively uneducated athlete who panicked and thought it was the best way out of the situation. He probably DID think it was consensual at the time and then viewing it through her perspective, saw that he was way more willing than her and may have gone overboard.
there is absolutely no way that this girl did not consent to some of the intimacy between them. It’s naive to think otherwise. There are a lot of similarities between this story and Ronaldo/mayorga.
Regarding the second part I think he had probably a lot of sensible and calm people around him. Two of the things that I think could be relevant to getting the case settled was his signing afterwards of a $136m 7 year contract and getting all his sponsors back.
She stated the kissing was consensual.
The paying also made sure that the story was forever dead from then on. It didn't go away, but it ensured that there was pretty much no chance of any new information ever being added to it since she is also probably limited from selling her story to papers, magazines, books, etc, which in turn minimized headlines in the following years.
I have no actual PR expertise, but that does seem like a big deal when examining the career and image of Kobe. It seems very well worth it for him to have paid and write whatever she wanted him to in a public statement, short of explicitly admitting to a crime.
jesus christ just shut up
Absolutely. There was little interest in the issue after the matter was settled in civil court, which is why there have been next to no references about the incident following last weekend’s crash.
Are people still litigating this ‘non-case’; seeing as everyone is so interested in the man what are people’s views on his Travon Martin comments or his homophobic slur?
Seeing as people are all so ITK over this I’d refer you to comments made by Gillian Sheldon; a journalist who covered the case from Colorado during the trial, pre settlement [you know as opposed to behind your keyboard spouting nonsense nearly 20 years later].
“How can we use somebody’s worst day on this earth as a referendum of their character in totality?”
Easy to play the moral compass now he’s gone; if this was such an issue you should have educated yourself during his life [the case has never been a secret, Kobe even talks about how it inspired the Black Mamba mentality to an extent] but no people who were clueless about the man a week ago read something & suddenly charge to the keyboard to play judge, juror & executioner.
How many people are there on this forum? I’d hazard a guess that at least one member has done something dubious in their past that they’d rather not discuss/divulge but no one gives a damn about us so we aren’t judged on those moments.
His legacy? One of the Top 10 players to pick up a basketball in the NBA & a family man.
[& I was never even a Kobe fan!!!]
Seeing as people are all so ITK over this I’d refer you to comments made by Gillian Sheldon; a journalist who covered the case from Colorado during the trial, pre settlement [you know as opposed to behind your keyboard spouting nonsense nearly 20 years later].
“How can we use somebody’s worst day on this earth as a referendum of their character in totality?”
Easy to play the moral compass now he’s gone; if this was such an issue you should have educated yourself during his life [the case has never been a secret, Kobe even talks about how it inspired the Black Mamba mentality to an extent] but no people who were clueless about the man a week ago read something & suddenly charge to the keyboard to play judge, juror & executioner.
How many people are there on this forum? I’d hazard a guess that at least one member has done something dubious in their past that they’d rather not discuss/divulge but no one gives a damn about us so we aren’t judged on those moments.
His legacy? One of the Top 10 players to pick up a basketball in the NBA & a family man.
[& I was never even a Kobe fan!!!]
you’re a 19 year old girl and one of the most famous NBA players in the world is making a move on you. You think that her level of consent stopped at the kiss? Don’t be so naive.
Wow so every single 19 year girl on the planet would consent being fecked by Ronaldo just because? C'mon man.
I didn’t say that. I said that there’s no way the consent would have stopped at a kiss.
Why not? It doesn't make any sense. It's perfectly reasonable to kiss/be kissed but once you start being groped you want to stop. We've all been there, why would this particular girl be different? Because he's Kobe? I don't buy it.
if you were 19, working at a hotel and A celebrity female asked for a tour and then you ended up in a room with her and she started kissing you, would you stop?
I’m assuming you’re a straight male here, so if I’m wrong I apologize.
ESPN the largest sports network covering the NBA in America make mention of it in their 5 minute long ‘Life & Legacy of Kobe Bryant’ piece that’s still up on the ESPN NBA front page.
The many NBA podcasts I listen to daily/weekly have made reference to it. [Im listening to Bill Simmons & JA Adande discuss it now]. Romona Shelbourne whose known as the closest journalist to him has mentioned it on multiple podcasts & questioned him about it in his retirement piece. Rachel Nichols has also mentioned it multiple times. Zach Lowe went into detail about how before meeting with Kobe to watch an Eastern Conference Final game some years ago he had reservations because of the accusations.
Sorry but you’re wrong here. I consume NBA media for about 2+ hours a day; Colorado is actually part of his career narrative - it’s difficult to gloss over.
The whole story needs to be told but why does it need to be an immediate byline in a story regards his death? A lady on Daily Blast Live put it much better than I have but there’s a time & a place to tell his whole story & hours after his death in a breaking news story isn’t it.
There was an issue with the way the New York Post made no mention when they were running a timeline of the day; “Kobe has died”, “plane descended quickly” etc. so it definitely isn’t something people have forgotten.
The issue is people are suddenly interested when a week ago they’d have mistook Kobe for Lebron ala BBC. This story isn’t new/hidden & never has been.
Kissing and groping are two very different things. Groping involves a very specific physical stimulus that makes a "making out" situation sexual. It would be perfectly normal for her to see it as some sort of line she didn't want to cross. I don't understand why you find it hard to accept.
I've never had an intimate experience with a celebrity, but when I was 19 I was perfectly capable of deciding "on the spot" what I wanted to do or not with a girl.
In your hypothetical, he was able to grow as a person(and continue to be a multimillionaire), free of punishment. That is not rehabilitation, that is getting away with something and deciding not to do it again because of how it went that time.
He got off because the case was weak. The woman was on anti psychotic drugs for schizophrenia, another man's semen and a white man's follicles were found inside her underwear. she claimed she accidentally put on some dirty underwear.
So she apparently got raped, went to do the rape kit the next day and during that time had sex with someone else. The case fell apart as it wasnt a very good case and she had a whole load of things against her. this is why people try their luck and sue rich people
Typically as an afterthought. Its nowhere near the primary narrative about his life.
He is correct in some ways though. Just because you cannot handle it. It was a weak case and it was thrown out yet somehow he is still guilty. whats the point in innocent until proven guilty or even having a judicial system if members of the public who werent even there are gonna decide the verdict?
I refer you again to Gillian Sheldon.
If after all his life’s work people honestly think he should be defined by his lowest moment upon something he was never found guilty of then so be it.
Fact remains, your statement is simply untrue. The same outlets I read, watch & listened to last week in regards the NBA have all mentioned it this week.
Typically as an afterthought
Ramona Shelbourne has litterally gone into it on multiple podcasts but call it an afterthought because you’ve not heard/seen it because you actually don’t care.
I could feel off more names/shows but your minds made up with no actual basis in fact.
so we’ve hit this stage now
I refer you again to Gillian Sheldon.
If after all his life’s work people honestly think he should be defined by his lowest moment upon something he was never found guilty of then so be it.
Fact remains, your statement is simply untrue. The same outlets I read, watch & listened to last week in regards the NBA have all mentioned it this week.
Typically as an afterthought
Ramona Shelbourne has litterally gone into it on multiple podcasts but call it an afterthought because you’ve not heard/seen it because you actually don’t care.
I could feel off more names/shows but your minds made up with no actual basis in fact.
Its not the primary narrative on TV here. The mainstream media who people actually watch are looking back at Kobe the basketball player and Kobe the dad, with occasionally afterthought references to the case. There's simply no appetite for it at the moment.
Its very possible there was some degree of consent, but that of course wouldn't negate a removal of consent half way through the process. We will never know what happened, which is why Bryant's reputation was quickly rebuilt and the sponsorship deals returned after the civil case was settled.
The mainstream media here are having trouble differentiating Kobe & Lebron; no wonder the case is at the back of their coverage.
The media coverage here is generally a 30 second byline toward the latter part of the sport segment - do you mention he was a 5 time champion or focus on the allegation of rape. . . hmm
Basketball isn’t even a second rate sport in this country it’s below that, Kobe was an American sports star his coverage here is always going to be limited.
Are you saying his rape allegations should take precedent over his whole career?
But back to the main issue. Is there ‘next to no reference’ or ‘typically an afterthought’? Because they’re 2 different things.
The next to no reference line is simply false so let’s look at the afterthought comment.
When Giggsy goes [god forbid] should his byline read ‘known to have slept with his brothers missus’ or be abit more respectful & let the long form pieces discuss the whole man?
In the totality of most [I won’t say all] of the coverage I have taken in the Colorado incident is mentioned/discussed - If it’s mentioned 30mins into a podcast/show I don’t see how that suddenly makes it an afterthought.
I’m not sure why someone watching the BBC News at 10 seeing a 20-30 second round up story should hear about his rape allegations over the tragic circumstances of his death &/or his MVPs, Titles, Records. If it sparked interest a quick google search would give a rounded view of the man.
I think when you talk about his legacy and people believing this tarnishes it, you have to consider what the outcome of a criminal trial would have been. Based on everything we know, there’s no way there’s enough for conviction. Yet we have people remembering him as a rapist. It’s wrong.
This./
People will believe what they want to believe I guess and "feck the courts" and all that. They have decided based off their own private investigations which never happened
As many people have said in this thread already, OJ Simpson wan't convicted yet we remember him as a murderer. Michael Jackson wasn't convicted yet we remember him as a child abuser. Because people's personal opinions don't have to hold to the same standard as a court system where certainty is required for conviction. Especially when it comes to a crime like rape, where only a tiny, tiny percentage of rapists are ever found guilty.
If you are accused of rape and your public defence of your actions involves admitting that the person you slept with didn't want to have sex with you then you're quite likely to be thought of as a rapist. Perhaps something Kobe should have considered when he had sex with the person who didn't want to have sex with him, or when he released the statement admitting that she didn't want to have sex with him, or when he made a large settlement as a result of having sex with someone who didn't want to have sex with him. What's really wrong in that scenario is how he behaved, not how the public reacted to his behavior. Because people are allowed to base their opinions on what likely happened.