Incognito

1. If the woman is always to be believed, then To Kill a Mockingbird will no longer be taught in schools.

2. Has Haven Monahan been arrested?

3. Perhaps the Jacksonville player is of noble lineage, and the Buffalo player is of peasant stock.

Incognito should not address his Lordship unless called upon.
 
If there were going to be a guy, Incognito wouldn't surprise.

At the same time, if you wanted to target a guy without merit then Incognito would be a pretty good target.
 
Sure
Of course, it's awful if true.

I thought that's what I was saying. Once we know it's true THEN we go forward. I even said (fair or not) that I lean towards thinking it could be true.

If it's not true, of course, that is awful as well.
And Dion Dawkins says it didn't happen.

For an extreme example....If I tell people you rape little handicapped babies just because I already didn't like you (which is not the case, of course)...that does not make it automatically true.
Exactomundo
 

Yea that incident was a joke.

So, no player on the Bills heard anything, nor did any of the 3 Jaguars D-linemen...
Guess they'll review tape to see if any audio was picked up. But, if not, Ngakoue should face some type of punishment IMO.
Going public with this allegation without proof or witnesses is serious these days.
 
Just like false rape claims or sexual harassment or any form of racism.. If allegations are proven false, the accuser should face the same punishment that the accused would have faced had the allegations been true.

People who make false accusations should definitely be punished, but is the same amount of punishment had it been true really the route to take? Things like this should be taken case by case. Making a generic rule could could get dangerous. If a kid falsely accuses an adult of rape, should the kid get a prison sentence? I know that is an extreme hypothetical. How about if someone mistakenly accuses someone of rape? From the accused person's point of view it really doesn't matter if they are mistakenly or falsely accused, they are just accused. Do you punish the accuser in that situation? They were wrong, but it wasn't out of malice or with the intent of falsely accusing someone. There is a lot to think about in these cases and punishing people who blatantly make false claims is important.
 
People who make false accusations should definitely be punished, but is the same amount of punishment had it been true really the route to take? Things like this should be taken case by case. Making a generic rule could could get dangerous. If a kid falsely accuses an adult of rape, should the kid get a prison sentence? I know that is an extreme hypothetical. How about if someone mistakenly accuses someone of rape? From the accused person's point of view it really doesn't matter if they are mistakenly or falsely accused, they are just accused. Do you punish the accuser in that situation? They were wrong, but it wasn't out of malice or with the intent of falsely accusing someone. There is a lot to think about in these cases and punishing people who blatantly make false claims is important.

You make a lot of valid points, for sure. And I guess I accidentally spoke in generalities but what I meant is that these "eye for an eye" punishments should really only be applied to the people who blatantly make false accusations, like you said.

It would be really hard to make a hard law that apply to all cases since there are usually so many moving, unique variables. I just get sick of reading about people claiming they were sexually harassed or that they were subject to overt racism -- only to, when the facts come out, find out that their claims are 100% unfounded.

In today's America, specifically with these types of claims, the accused are now assumed guilty. And even if they're found not guilty, they still lose jobs, family, reputation, etc. It's entirely too easy for people to say whatever they want, and they rarely if ever face any repercussion for it.
 
Odd nothing from Incognito.........

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...cognito-seem-to-be-waiting-for-the-raw-audio/
Bills, Incognito seem to be waiting for the raw audio
Posted by Mike Florio on January 9, 2018, 2:28 PM EST

The rarely-circumspect Richie Incognito has said nothing at all on social media about the serious accusation that he used a racial slur during Sunday’s game against the Jaguars. Incognito’s boss (one of them, at least) has offered up a vague assessment of the exchange between Incognito and Jaguars defensive end Yannick Ngakoue.

So why has there been no absolute statement from player or team about what Incognito said? As Chris Simms mentioned during Tuesday’s PFT Live, there’s a chance that Incognito has deliberately chosen not to say anything for fear of being proven a liar by raw audio that may, or may not, exist
 
I think being quiet is the best way around this tbh.
1. If any audio comes out, even if it's the weakest racial insult ever, boom liar.
2. What good would it do? People have made up their minds from previous incidents about him. Deserved or not.

Best to just stay quiet and let it (possibly)blow over.
 
If it turns out to be untrue that other dude should be banned from the NFL
Incognito would possibly be banned if the accusation turns out to be true. So heck yeah, if the Jaguars player outright lied or exaggerated what was really said, I totally agree he should be banned. It'd never happen though. NAACP would be sent to Jacksonville overnight express
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
474,011
Messages
14,506,482
Members
24,207
Latest member
TomGiantsfan
Back
Top