Conversation read b/t fans... for the record, I pretty much embrace Fan B's perspective.
Fan A: I want to share this optimism that he's grown up, yada yada, but he was really accused 11 different times? Don't know how you root for someone like that.And FWIW, one of the incidents was broken up by teammates at FSU. Clearly it was more than allegations since there were witnesses and he was kicked off the team.
Fan B: I'll go you one better... actually already had, but you evidently didn't notice... The very fact that *his* lawyer negotiated the settlement that he did effectively establishes there was substance to the allegation. And. Otoh. Glass half-full. Something more substantive in all likelihood results in actual arrest and conviction and penalties. And that there's been no further accusation at least is more reassuring than the converse. Doesn't seem like it matters to you, so all of that was mainly for other readers' consideration.
Fan A: This is just not true. A conviction is impossible without victim cooperation. Charges get dropped all the time, it doesn’t make allegations (again, with teammates as witnesses) untrue. FSU wanted nothing to do with him. I want to be wrong. But I’m disappointed in the pick.
Fan B: Um. Three things. First, you do need to get it that there's no argument that something happened; again, almost self-evidently, given that Ball's attorney agreed with the GF's attorney. 2nd, fwiw, you're exchanging tweets with someone who for several years taught a course called Family Violence. But feel free to double-check me... Victim cooperation is strongly desired, but it's the *prosecutor's* call whether charges are pressed. Given that there were witnesses, it's at least somewhat less important what the GF was wanting to do. 3rd, you make the choice to be disappointed. The world consists of people predisposed to optimism and to pessimism. Perhaps you've had some experience in your life that makes you especially sensitive to intimate partner violence, and if that's the case, I sympathize, and your pessimism may be well-grounded anecdotally. I'm just not so inclined.
Fan A: We’re on the same side here, if that’s the case. I’d love to be wrong - I desperately hope the Cowboys did their due diligence. Habitually violent people CAN change but usually don’t.
Fan B: You said "Habitually violent people can change but usually don't." (a) You'd have to establish a definition of the "habitually" part. (b) Have to show evidence that Ball's behaviors met that standard. (c) Have to point to the social science research that agrees with the assertion.
Fan A: 11 accusations isn’t an isolated incident
Fan B: 11 incidents. 1 accusation. That's what we know. Did those 11 incidents occur in the space of a year, or a week? We don't know. Were most of the incidents physical violence, or were some deemed emotional violence (eg, busting her phone)? We don't know. Were there other GFs before or others since that just didn't report? We don't know. Again. Pessimists will lean one way, optimists the other. I'm an unabashed optimist. I need more information before I lean toward the worst.
Fan A: Emotional violence is still violence. I’m not a pessimist. But this is important.
Fan B: It is, indeed. But we throw these broad terms around for legal purposes that, in actuality, can cover a variety of types and levels of intensity of anti-social behavior.
Fan A: Again, my only takeaway is: I hope the Cowboys did due diligence and selected him because they liked what they found, not because a 1st round talent fell cheap. Be honest: in professional sports, it’s usually the latter.
Fan B: (a) Being by profession a researcher, pardon me that I chafe at these broad conclusive statements you appear to be predisposed to offer ("it's usually the latter"... as-if one could know that from any factual perspective). (b) Call me an optimist. I take them at their word until I learn different. And the converse is also true.