PDA

View Full Version : Vikings Team Member Accused of Assault



BirdHunter
11-27-2006, 04:41 PM
(WCCO) Eden Prairie, Minn. A woman has accused a team member of the Minnesota Vikings of assault.

According to the Eden Prairie Police Department, the woman told authorities last Wednesday she had been attacked. She said that the assault occurred at the Minnesota Viking team member's home at about 4 a.m. on Nov. 21.




http://wcco.com/topstories/local_story_331153124.html


I hope it is not true. It has been a clean year so far. :(

BadlandsVikings
11-27-2006, 04:44 PM
Oh wonderful, just what we need.
:(

Blame Smoot

NodakPaul
11-27-2006, 04:49 PM
Well, about half the Vikings have homes in Eden Prairie (including Smoot WVV ;)), so that doesn't exactly narrow it down.

whackthepack
11-27-2006, 04:57 PM
We will have to wait and see what developes with this story and the person is innocent until proven guility so lets hope that this is a misunderstanding.


But if it is true I don't understand why you put yourself in this kind of a position?
If you need some that bad make a booty call, or call a professional.


I wonder how Childress will handle it.

NodakPaul
11-27-2006, 05:05 PM
the person is innocent until proven guilty

Yes they are.
Thank you for reminding us of that whack.
Sometimes people (myself included) have a tendency to judge pro athletes before we have the evidence.

On a side note, it was not a sexual assault, so more likely some kind of domestic battery.
The women in question could be a spouse or girlfriend.

kramer9guy
11-27-2006, 05:13 PM
If these accusations prove to be true and this person is found guilty (whoever it is), I'm sure Childress will take the appropriate actions and punish them as he sees fit under the guidelines of our team's new culture of accountability (which I fully agree with).

cajunvike
11-27-2006, 05:19 PM
The beeyotch probably had it coming!

JUST KIDDING!!!!!

douginc
11-27-2006, 05:39 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


the person is innocent until proven guilty

Yes they are.
Thank you for reminding us of that whack.
Sometimes people (myself included) have a tendency to judge pro athletes before we have the evidence.

On a side note, it was not a sexual assault, so more likely some kind of domestic battery.
The women in question could be a spouse or girlfriend.


It is hard to remember that sometimes, that they are innocent until proven guilty.

I remember myself thinking with the whole Duke Lacrosse scandal, 'young boys are perverts, and they probably did it'.
And look, I was a total idiot, the more evidence that came out, the more it showed they really didn't do it.
But to judgemental people like me, they were already convicted.

So, I'll withhold ANY judgement UNTIL the evidence supports it - or the player admits it.

*Side note:
It was probably Denny Green again.......and he falsely identified himself as a Vikings player.

sleepagent
11-27-2006, 05:41 PM
Excellent journalism there.
Report an event without names.
::)

Prophet
11-27-2006, 05:42 PM
Unfortunately all it takes sometimes is for someone to be accused of something and it ruins their name.
I know of a situation where a young woman accused a professor of sexual advances because she received a bad mark in his class.
The fallout resulted in an article in the school newspaper, administrative leave, and a ruined reputation.
It ends up that two months later she went public saying she was sorry and she made up the accusations because she was angry.
It was too late for this guy, his reputation was tarnished already.

Hopefully these allegations are false.

PurplePackerEater
11-27-2006, 05:54 PM
Can't we all just get along? :)

vikes2456
11-27-2006, 06:05 PM
This sucks, I wonder who it is. But, the player is innocent to proven guilty and it may be the case that the woman is trying to get some quick cash.

happy camper
11-27-2006, 06:42 PM
"sleepagent" wrote:


Excellent journalism there.
Report an event without names.
::)


Even worse journalisim would be giving a name you are not 100% sure about.

I'm guessing the journalists know who it is. But are withholding it due to possibily not know 100% and possibily waiting to see if the courts are for sure going to be brought in this.

Mr Anderson
11-27-2006, 07:50 PM
Discipline, discipline, discipline.


Good going no-name.


First Koren, then Dwight Smith, now this, it's looking like a Tice year all over again.... but instead of having no defense, we have no offense.

x-ray jeff
11-27-2006, 07:55 PM
I agree with acumen's post.How does a guy defend himself against such accusations? One of the radiologists where I work had the same type of thing happen to him. Crappy.
>:(
As a side note I doubt if it was any member of the special teams,they haven't assaulted anyone lately :D

NodakPaul
11-27-2006, 08:00 PM
I'll admit that the system isn't perfect, and innocent people do get their reputations ruined... but from my experience in law enforcement, if a young lady says she has been assaulted, the vast majority of the time she has.
Unless the accused is wealthy or in a position of authority (as in Acumen's example), the accuser rarely gains anything, and actually tends to suffer socially from making the accusations, even if they turn out to be true.

Hopefully in this case the allegations are false.

sleepagent
11-27-2006, 08:45 PM
"happy" wrote:


"sleepagent" wrote:


Excellent journalism there.
Report an event without names.
::)


Even worse journalisim would be giving a name you are not 100% sure about.

I'm guessing the journalists know who it is. But are withholding it due to possibily not know 100% and possibily waiting to see if the courts are for sure going to be brought in this.


Then why bring it up in the first place?
Why not wait until you have all the facts?
Is this such hot news that it will make a journalist's career?
This isn't news, its tabloid trash right now.
They don't have the WHO in WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, WHY & HOW.

Garland Greene
11-27-2006, 09:08 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/football/nfl/11/27/vikings.police.ap/index.html

More troubles for Vikings
Police investigating assault allegations against player
Posted: Monday November 27, 2006 7:00PM; Updated: Monday November 27, 2006 7:00PM
EDEN PRAIRIE, Minn. (AP) -- Police were investigating on Monday a woman's allegation that she was assaulted by a member of the Minnesota Vikings at his home.

A news release from the city said investigators were interviewing the alleged victim and possible witnesses in an effort to corroborate the allegations.

The release said that the alleged assault happened when the woman was leaving the residence. The alleged assault was not sexual, the release said.

Sgt. Bob Olson said the allegation arose from an incident at 4 a.m. Nov. 21. The woman walked into the Police Department a few hours later to file the report.

Police would not identify the player.

The Vikings declined to comment, team spokesman Bob Hagan said

Garland Greene
11-27-2006, 09:28 PM
My guess someone threw Williamson a football and it went through his hands and hit the woman ;D

Ltrey33
11-27-2006, 09:51 PM
"THEBIGDADDY" wrote:


My guess someone threw Williamson a football and it went through his hands and hit the woman ;D


Haha...true that! I wonder who it was.

Vikes
11-27-2006, 10:08 PM
Good. Maybe the team will rally around this. We have boat scandal and we started focusing and winning. We need the negative press to get us going.

"RAIDERS OF THE NORTH"

SKOL!

audioghost
11-27-2006, 10:51 PM
The StarTribune says she was "pushed"...how lame! What is this, elementary school recess? I know, never strike a women and this is true, but c'mon...getting pushed turns into AN ASSAULT! The media will feast on this like a woman was killed....she apparently had a small bruise.

The media these days is terrible....seriously! I mean, next thing you know we'll be talking about how a Vikings player broke some chick's nail or something....I don't put much stock into this. I think our team is viewed as "goons" and the media and others are taking advantage of it to make $$$. Whatever, its just another hyped up story.

Read this!

http://www.startribune.com/467/story/838515.html

olson_10
11-27-2006, 10:54 PM
it was chris kluwe kickin some hos around

VKG4LFE
11-27-2006, 10:57 PM
SO we don't know who it was?

audioghost
11-27-2006, 11:13 PM
Well she was "pushed" so I bet it was Smoot...just like when he's covering WR's in games...he pushes them after 5 yards and gets Illegal Contact (*which is what this would technically be classified as)

Plus Smoot loves hos

VKG4LFE
11-27-2006, 11:22 PM
Smoot is BAD. He looked horrible in the game on Sunday, Griffin did a way better job in coverage! Oh well, we won!!

WBLVikeBabe
11-27-2006, 11:42 PM
"Vikes" wrote:


Good. Maybe the team will rally around this. We have boat scandal and we started focusing and winning. We need the negative press to get us going.

"RAIDERS OF THE NORTH"

SKOL!



Good?
I don't see how this is good.
Even if it is true, this is not what this team needs right now.
I'm getting sick of all these off the field antics.
I'm not saying they are supposed to be perfect but when you are in the public eye like that you gotta be careful.
I really hope that this is just a rumor and nothing comes of it.

happy camper
11-27-2006, 11:42 PM
i dont know if last sundays game was an example of smoots bad games
???

vikes2456
11-28-2006, 12:15 AM
1st of all, it sounds like someone trying to get a quick buck

2nd Read this-"There was an altercation when the victim was told to leave the Viking's house. She alleges she was pushed," Olson said, noting that alcohol was involved. "We need to ask more questions to see if the case goes forward."
It sounds like she may have refused to leave the house, which may get the player off the hook because he has a right to remove her from his property (at least I believe he does)

PacNWVike
11-28-2006, 01:54 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


I'll admit that the system isn't perfect, and innocent people do get their reputations ruined... but from my experience in law enforcement, if a young lady says she has been assaulted, the vast majority of the time she has.
Unless the accused is wealthy or in a position of authority (as in Acumen's example), the accuser rarely gains anything, and actually tends to suffer socially from making the accusations, even if they turn out to be true.

Hopefully in this case the allegations are false.


I respect your point of view based on experience Nodak, but my experience is the opposite.
In 16 years of detective work I personally conducted 19 rape allegations.
In 18, the "victim" eventually admitted the allegation was false for reasons ranging from "my parents/husband/boyfriend might find out" to an incident where an idiot had consensual sex with a gal and then threw a twenty dollar bill on her night stand when he was leaving!

::)

She quite understandably became angry.
My point of view is EVERYONE's identity should remain anonymous until the investigation is complete and a trial then becomes public.
I agree with Acumen, i.e. why should a man's reputation be smeared?

The Dropper
11-28-2006, 04:26 AM
"olson_10" wrote:


it was chris kluwe kickin some hos around


LMAO!
:D
Nice one. And I reckon Kluwe's hardest push would leave at most, a "barely visible bruise." I think you've got something there.

Moral of the stroy though, is be careful who you bring home, and be careful who you go home with, regardless of whether you're an athlete. Not that I learned this lesson myself until far too many mistakes were made, so I'm not about to hold it against anyone.

digital420
11-28-2006, 05:08 AM
ok i've read a lot on this so far and am really glad that names were not printed, and that the investigation is looking into the fact if this really happened.


1. 4 am they got a taxi and went home (they the alleged victem and her friend). They were prolly drunk.. and were being.. asked and told to leave. maybe she got upset cause he didn't pay her?
or didn't bang her.. or maybe liked her friend more??

2. a barly noticable bruise.. I get those from bumping into things.. it takes minimal force to cause the human skin to bruise.. I caught my gf once while she was falling down the stairs infront of me. my hands left small bruises on her ribs and shoulder. if a pro football player wanted to toss u out.. u'd have more then barley noticible bruises..


3. if you were assulted.. wouldn't u go right away to the police?
why wait till the next day?
cause yer too drunk?
yer story isn't perfected?


i don't mean to sound against the girl. but her story and the way she went about it is really kinda suspecious.

DiGiTaL

singersp
11-28-2006, 07:47 AM
"VKG4LFE" wrote:


Smoot is BAD. He looked horrible in the game on Sunday, Griffin did a way better job in coverage! Oh well, we won!!


??? I don't think you watched the same game that most of us watched. Smoot had one of his better games on Sunday.

Paul Allen & Mike Morris even commented on it after the game on the post show.


Back on the topic, no names have been named so let's not be making accusations.

singersp
11-28-2006, 07:49 AM
The Pioneer Press article states she didn't even know who the player was...

Posted on Tue, Nov. 28, 2006

Unidentified Viking accused of assault (http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/sports/football/16113986.htm)

singersp
11-28-2006, 07:51 AM
She's looking for a quick payday IMO.

Del Rio
11-28-2006, 08:29 AM
This wouldn't be the first time something like this has happened. We defiantely have some guys on our team that I wouldn't raise an eyebrow at if it turned out to be them.

That being said the police are not even sure there was a player present. All they know is this lady SAYS she was Assaulted in his home, at a party.

That being said I love how people always blame the possible victim first in everything. Good stuff.

digital420
11-28-2006, 08:45 AM
Del, i'm not sure it's blaming the accuser..

It's the fact that the details of the case are a bit sketchy.
even if she isn't in it just for money.. something is not completly correct
with her acusations.

if they come out to be valid, and she was assulted.. then proper things should be done,
but if we let 5 fake acusations go, the 1 that is correct will be negletory from the
previous victim cries wolf syndrome.

DiGiTaL

Del Rio
11-28-2006, 08:54 AM
"digital420" wrote:


Del, i'm not sure it's blaming the accuser..

It's the fact that the details of the case are a bit sketchy.
even if she isn't in it just for money.. something is not completly correct
with her acusations.

if they come out to be valid, and she was assulted.. then proper things should be done,
but if we let 5 fake acusations go, the 1 that is correct will be negletory from the
previous victim cries wolf syndrome.

DiGiTaL



What is not completely correct about her accusations? No one knows either way so why does everyone always pit against the accuser in everything? I am not saying to judge the accused, but why do people feel the need to judge the accuser.

Is it above and beyond reason that an NFL player would assault a young lady? Not at all IMO.

NodakPaul
11-28-2006, 08:59 AM
"PacNWVike" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


I'll admit that the system isn't perfect, and innocent people do get their reputations ruined... but from my experience in law enforcement, if a young lady says she has been assaulted, the vast majority of the time she has.
Unless the accused is wealthy or in a position of authority (as in Acumen's example), the accuser rarely gains anything, and actually tends to suffer socially from making the accusations, even if they turn out to be true.

Hopefully in this case the allegations are false.


I respect your point of view based on experience Nodak, but my experience is the opposite.
In 16 years of detective work I personally conducted 19 rape allegations.
In 18, the "victim" eventually admitted the allegation was false for reasons ranging from "my parents/husband/boyfriend might find out" to an incident where an idiot had consensual sex with a gal and then threw a twenty dollar bill on her night stand when he was leaving!

::)

She quite understandably became angry.
My point of view is EVERYONE's identity should remain anonymous until the investigation is complete and a trial then becomes public.
I agree with Acumen, i.e. why should a man's reputation be smeared?


Fair enough.
To be honest, I never worked in investigations, so you definitely have more experience than me in that respect.
And I agree that the player's identity should remain anonymous until the investigation is complete.
It sounds like the Eden Prairie police department is doing a good job of keeping the information private right now.
Kudos to them.

Marrdro
11-28-2006, 09:10 AM
"THEBIGDADDY" wrote:


My guess someone threw Williamson a football and it went through his hands and hit the woman ;D


I needed a laugh today ;D

singersp
11-28-2006, 09:10 AM
"Del" wrote:


"digital420" wrote:


Del, i'm not sure it's blaming the accuser..

It's the fact that the details of the case are a bit sketchy.
even if she isn't in it just for money.. something is not completly correct
with her acusations.

if they come out to be valid, and she was assulted.. then proper things should be done,
but if we let 5 fake acusations go, the 1 that is correct will be negletory from the
previous victim cries wolf syndrome.

DiGiTaL



What is not completely correct about her accusations? No one knows either way so why does everyone always pit against the accuser in everything? I am not saying to judge the accused, but why do people feel the need to judge the accuser.

Is it above and beyond reason that an NFL player would assault a young lady? Not at all IMO.


Sure it is. It's also very conceivable that a person might seize an opportunity to turn a trivial matter into a big issue to make a quick buck from a pro player or celebrity.

The impression I get from the articles I read leads me to believe this was a person who seemed reluctant to leave when told to & was forced out the door. Alcohol was involved & I have the feeling she was under the influence as well.

Freya
11-28-2006, 09:31 AM
"singersp" wrote:


The Pioneer Press article states she didn't even know who the player was...

Posted on Tue, Nov. 28, 2006

Unidentified Viking accused of assault (http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/sports/football/16113986.htm)





I find it very odd that this has not progressed further than a huge question mark in this many days. If names and addresses were given then what is taking so long?

Zeus
11-28-2006, 09:47 AM
"Vikes" wrote:


Good. Maybe the team will rally around this. We have boat scandal and we started focusing and winning. We need the negative press to get us going.

"RAIDERS OF THE NORTH"

SKOL!



Good?
GOOD?

It's good that a pro football player smacks around a woman?
That's GOOD?
Is that what you're saying???

I know we don't have *any* true facts at this point, but there's NO WAY IN HECK this is Good.

=Z=

Zeus
11-28-2006, 09:48 AM
"singersp" wrote:


She's looking for a quick payday IMO.


IMHO, jumping to conclusions is bad.

=Z=

Freya
11-28-2006, 10:03 AM
"AWZeus" wrote:


"Vikes" wrote:


Good. Maybe the team will rally around this. We have boat scandal and we started focusing and winning. We need the negative press to get us going.

"RAIDERS OF THE NORTH"

SKOL!



Good?
GOOD?

It's good that a pro football player smacks around a woman? That's GOOD?
Is that what you're saying???

I know we don't have *any* true facts at this point, but there's NO WAY IN HECK this is Good.

=Z=


I'd say, walk yer talk, AW.

Maybe that isn't what this member meant and maybe YOU are jumping to conclusions.

BirdHunter
11-28-2006, 10:09 AM
I heard on the radio this morning that the player was also involved with the Love Boat Scandal...... Smoot?

Zeus
11-28-2006, 10:10 AM
"Freya" wrote:


"AWZeus" wrote:


"Vikes" wrote:


Good. Maybe the team will rally around this. We have boat scandal and we started focusing and winning. We need the negative press to get us going.

"RAIDERS OF THE NORTH"

SKOL!



Good?
GOOD?

It's good that a pro football player smacks around a woman? That's GOOD?
Is that what you're saying???

I know we don't have *any* true facts at this point, but there's NO WAY IN HECK this is Good.

=Z=


I'd say, walk yer talk, AW.

Maybe that isn't what this member meant and maybe YOU are jumping to conclusions.


He wrote:

Good. Maybe the team will rally around this.

I don't see how that is open for any interpretation other than that Vikes thinks it's good that this incident (whatever it was) happened because it might spark the team.


=Z=

singersp
11-28-2006, 10:14 AM
"AWZeus" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


She's looking for a quick payday IMO.


IMHO, jumping to conclusions is bad.

=Z=


That's my opinion & I'm sticking to it.

Look who's jumping to conclusions;


It's good that a pro football player smacks around a woman?
That's GOOD?
Is that what you're saying???

What makes you think she was smacked around?

Sounds like she was maybe pushed out the door. With alcohol involved, she could have been drunk on her jiggly butt & stumbled & fell after a slight push for all we know right now.


Police are investigating a 22-year-old woman's complaint that she was pushed and fell while leaving the Eden Prairie home of a Minnesota Vikings football player after a gathering before dawn a week ago.


Because of the long holiday weekend and the minor crime alleged -- fifth-degree assault -- the case wasn't assigned to an investigator until Monday, Olson said.

whackthepack
11-28-2006, 12:04 PM
"THEBIGDADDY" wrote:


My guess someone threw Williamson a football and it went through his hands and hit the woman ;D



It couldn't have been Brad Johnson because the velocity on the ball wouldn't have been enough to cause a bruise.

whackthepack
11-28-2006, 12:21 PM
"audioghost" wrote:


The StarTribune says she was "pushed"...how lame! What is this, elementary school recess? I know, never strike a women and this is true, but c'mon...getting pushed turns into AN ASSAULT! The media will feast on this like a woman was killed....she apparently had a small bruise.

The media these days is terrible....seriously! I mean, next thing you know we'll be talking about how a Vikings player broke some chick's nail or something....I don't put much stock into this. I think our team is viewed as "goons" and the media and others are taking advantage of it to make $$$. Whatever, its just another hyped up story.

Read this!

http://www.startribune.com/467/story/838515.html





I had come home from an archery practice (a lot of years back) one fine afternoon and a girl that I had recently broken up with was waiting outside of my house.
When I was walking to the door she got between me and the door, so I told her to get out of my way and leave my property.
She wouldn't so I took my left hand (right hand had a bow case in it) and put it on her opposite shoulder and kind of pulled her to the side and she feel down in the grass.

I walked into my house and about a half hour later there was a knock at my door and it was the police, she had field a complaint against for 5th degree assault.

I spent 3 weeks trying to get the charges dismissed because they where ridiculous, but the prosecutor was a jerk and would only agree to settle for disturbing the peace, how I did that I have no idea because besides telling her to leave I never said anything.


So I plead guilty to disturbing the peace instead of going to court and having to have a jury decide the case (which I would have won), and waste a week of time.

Del Rio
11-28-2006, 12:38 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"Del" wrote:


"digital420" wrote:


Del, i'm not sure it's blaming the accuser..

It's the fact that the details of the case are a bit sketchy.
even if she isn't in it just for money.. something is not completly correct
with her acusations.

if they come out to be valid, and she was assulted.. then proper things should be done,
but if we let 5 fake acusations go, the 1 that is correct will be negletory from the
previous victim cries wolf syndrome.

DiGiTaL



What is not completely correct about her accusations? No one knows either way so why does everyone always pit against the accuser in everything? I am not saying to judge the accused, but why do people feel the need to judge the accuser.

Is it above and beyond reason that an NFL player would assault a young lady? Not at all IMO.


Sure it is. It's also very conceivable that a person might seize an opportunity to turn a trivial matter into a big issue to make a quick buck from a pro player or celebrity.

The impression I get from the articles I read leads me to believe this was a person who seemed reluctant to leave when told to & was forced out the door. Alcohol was involved & I have the feeling she was under the influence as well.


I agree completely. The difference is everyone wants to defend the player no one wants to defend the lady.

There is a 100% possibility that a vikings PLAYER roughed her up. There is a 100% possibility she is telling stories to make money...................we agree........

Now my question is why the hate for the supposed victim? There is no need to defend either party or make claims that she is out for money. She may very well have been hit. We don't know anything and yet instead of remaining neutral many times people in general will side with the accused and even sometimes go out of their way to try and slander the supposed victim.

You want to tell a 16 year old girl who just got raped in the bathroom stall that she is a lying tramp that doesn't want her daddy to find out she is sexually active? It happens all the time, so what now she got raped and has to put up with your kaka del toro? You being anyone in general not you singer.

Same goes for the accused. Just play it neutral and wait and see. IMO People in general don't wait and see however, and this thread is proof on a smaller scale of this issue we see every day.

Sure the burden of proof is on her, she doesn't need ignorant, hateful, comments thrown at her while she is prooving it.

Ltrey33
11-28-2006, 01:20 PM
I just don't understand why they're not releasing who it was. Obiously he's not a minor or anything like that.

Anyone have any idea as to a reason why?

NodakPaul
11-28-2006, 01:31 PM
"Ltrey33" wrote:


I just don't understand why they're not releasing who it was. Obiously he's not a minor or anything like that.

Anyone have any idea as to a reason why?


They are not releasing who is was because it is under investigation.
If the investigation deems that there is not enough evidence to warrant a charge, then technically it should never be released.
Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

singersp
11-28-2006, 03:05 PM
"Del" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Del" wrote:


"digital420" wrote:


Del, i'm not sure it's blaming the accuser..

It's the fact that the details of the case are a bit sketchy.
even if she isn't in it just for money.. something is not completly correct
with her acusations.

if they come out to be valid, and she was assulted.. then proper things should be done,
but if we let 5 fake acusations go, the 1 that is correct will be negletory from the
previous victim cries wolf syndrome.

DiGiTaL



What is not completely correct about her accusations? No one knows either way so why does everyone always pit against the accuser in everything? I am not saying to judge the accused, but why do people feel the need to judge the accuser.

Is it above and beyond reason that an NFL player would assault a young lady? Not at all IMO.


Sure it is. It's also very conceivable that a person might seize an opportunity to turn a trivial matter into a big issue to make a quick buck from a pro player or celebrity.

The impression I get from the articles I read leads me to believe this was a person who seemed reluctant to leave when told to & was forced out the door. Alcohol was involved & I have the feeling she was under the influence as well.


I agree completely. The difference is everyone wants to defend the player no one wants to defend the lady.

There is a 100% possibility that a vikings PLAYER roughed her up. There is a 100% possibility she is telling stories to make money...................we agree........

Now my question is why the hate for the supposed victim? There is no need to defend either party or make claims that she is out for money. She may very well have been hit. We don't know anything and yet instead of remaining neutral many times people in general will side with the accused and even sometimes go out of their way to try and slander the supposed victim.

You want to tell a 16 year old girl who just got raped in the bathroom stall that she is a lying tramp that doesn't want her daddy to find out she is sexually active? It happens all the time, so what now she got raped and has to put up with your kaka del toro? You being anyone in general not you singer.

Same goes for the accused. Just play it neutral and wait and see. IMO People in general don't wait and see however, and this thread is proof on a smaller scale of this issue we see every day.

Sure the burden of proof is on her, she doesn't need ignorant, hateful, comments thrown at her while she is prooving it.


So far the article claims she was pushed & fell down. She even gave that info to the police. That's what I'm basing my opinion on. It has been stated that there were no sexual charges being brought up & that may be a reason why you see it being sided with the player.

5th degree assault & rape are apples & oranges when you compare the two.

singersp
11-28-2006, 03:11 PM
"Del" wrote:

Now my question is why the hate for the supposed victim? There is no need to defend either party or make claims that she is out for money. She may very well have been hit. We don't know anything and yet instead of remaining neutral many times people in general will side with the accused and even sometimes go out of their way to try and slander the supposed victim.

I can answer that one in a heartbeat. First of all we are talking about 5th degree assault & and unwanted guest. Plus we don't know who the player is yet. We are all Vikings fans here for the most part, so I think it's part of our love for the team & it's players to tend to take the side of the player.

Now if it comes out that the player in question happens to be someone a member doesn't like, say Fred Smoot, your're going to see a sway in opinion to back the women.

Furthermore, if this was a Packer player being accused of assault, I'll double-damn guarantee you a good share of the members would be taking the side of the accuser & not the accused.
;)

ultravikingfan
11-28-2006, 03:15 PM
Singer...you seem to know a lot about 5th degree assault?

Did you club the wrong person once?
;D

singersp
11-28-2006, 03:15 PM
"Del" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Del" wrote:


"digital420" wrote:


Del, i'm not sure it's blaming the accuser..

It's the fact that the details of the case are a bit sketchy.
even if she isn't in it just for money.. something is not completly correct
with her acusations.

if they come out to be valid, and she was assulted.. then proper things should be done,
but if we let 5 fake acusations go, the 1 that is correct will be negletory from the
previous victim cries wolf syndrome.

DiGiTaL



What is not completely correct about her accusations? No one knows either way so why does everyone always pit against the accuser in everything? I am not saying to judge the accused, but why do people feel the need to judge the accuser.

Is it above and beyond reason that an NFL player would assault a young lady? Not at all IMO.


Sure it is. It's also very conceivable that a person might seize an opportunity to turn a trivial matter into a big issue to make a quick buck from a pro player or celebrity.

The impression I get from the articles I read leads me to believe this was a person who seemed reluctant to leave when told to & was forced out the door. Alcohol was involved & I have the feeling she was under the influence as well.


I agree completely. The difference is everyone wants to defend the player no one wants to defend the lady.

I'm writing that one down on my calendar. I think that's only the 2nd time since I became a member here 15 month ago, that you agreed with me or at least stated that fact.
:D

Del Rio
11-28-2006, 03:17 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"Del" wrote:

Now my question is why the hate for the supposed victim? There is no need to defend either party or make claims that she is out for money. She may very well have been hit. We don't know anything and yet instead of remaining neutral many times people in general will side with the accused and even sometimes go out of their way to try and slander the supposed victim.

I can answer that one in a heartbeat. First of all we are talking about 5th degree assault & and unwanted guest. Plus we don't know who the player is yet. We are all Vikings fans here for the most part, so I think it's part of our love for the team & it's players to tend to take the side of the player.

Now if it comes out that the player in question happens to be someone a member doesn't like, say Fred Smoot, your're going to see a sway in opinion to back the women.

Furthermore, if this was a Packer player being accused of assault, I'll double-gol 'darnit guarantee you a good share of the members would be taking the side of the accuser & not the accused.
;)


The point wasn't to compare similar cases it was to show how insanely ignorant it is to accuse the woman of being a money grabber when she may very well have been a victim of abuse.

I personally wouldn't be bashing the packer player. If I did it would be in jest as most of my comments directed at that team are, but your example makes it even more clear that this woman is taking heat she shouldn't have to just because you are a Vikings fan.

In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter much because I doubt she will read this. I don't even think it ever mentioned she wanted money, perhaps she wants 5th degree assault charges filed LMAO OMG what am idea.

This is not a problem here, this is a problem with society and you see it in all cases weather it be rape assault abuse........anything people are way too quick to go out of their way to attack the person claiming the crime has been commited. IMO it's in poor taste.

She isn't even accusing anyone in particular all she is saying is I got assaulted at this guys house. The fact that she didn't report anything sexual that she didnt go to hospital would make you think why would a 22 year old girl who was trying to get money tell a story so tame?

whackthepack
11-28-2006, 05:15 PM
"whackthepack" wrote:


"THEBIGDADDY" wrote:


My guess someone threw Williamson a football and it went through his hands and hit the woman ;D



It couldn't have been Brad Johnson because the velocity on the ball wouldn't have been enough to cause a bruise.



Come on not one response, I thought it was funny!

PacNWVike
11-28-2006, 09:21 PM
"whackthepack" wrote:


"whackthepack" wrote:


"THEBIGDADDY" wrote:


My guess someone threw Williamson a football and it went through his hands and hit the woman ;D



It couldn't have been Brad Johnson because the velocity on the ball wouldn't have been enough to cause a bruise.



Come on not one response, I thought it was funny!


Both comments were funny!
;D

happy camper
11-28-2006, 11:18 PM
dels right.

the person who automatically thinks the viking is guilty and the person who automatically thinks the women is a money grubber are both equally wrong.

until the investigation is over.

singersp
11-29-2006, 06:23 AM
"happy" wrote:


dels right.

the person who automatically thinks the viking is guilty and the person who automatically thinks the women is a money grubber are both equally wrong.

until the investigation is over.


??? How can we be wrong for having an opinion? They are opininons & nothing more. Based on the facts we have so far, that is what I tend to believe.

It does not mean I'm wrong. It does not mean I'm right. It means I have formulated an opinion.

singersp
11-29-2006, 06:34 AM
"Del" wrote:

This is not a problem here, this is a problem with society and you see it in all cases weather it be rape assault abuse........anything people are way too quick to go out of their way to attack the person claiming the crime has been commited. IMO it's in poor taste.

She isn't even accusing anyone in particular all she is saying is I got assaulted at this guys house. The fact that she didn't report anything sexual that she didnt go to hospital would make you think why would a 22 year old girl who was trying to get money tell a story so tame?



Because it did happen. No matter how tame it might be. A tame story that actually happened with witnesses is going to be more believable than her making up a story that has no witnesses.

I am not attacking the victim, I'm merely formulating an opinion based on what I've read so far & siding with the home-owner, who happens to be the football player. Siding with the player is not always the case, it just happens to be in this particular case.

In todays sue-happy world, people are sueing people over anything & winning.

Del Rio
11-29-2006, 07:15 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"Del" wrote:

This is not a problem here, this is a problem with society and you see it in all cases weather it be rape assault abuse........anything people are way too quick to go out of their way to attack the person claiming the crime has been commited. IMO it's in poor taste.

She isn't even accusing anyone in particular all she is saying is I got assaulted at this guys house. The fact that she didn't report anything sexual that she didnt go to hospital would make you think why would a 22 year old girl who was trying to get money tell a story so tame?



Because it did happen. No matter how tame it might be. A tame story that actually happened with witnesses is going to be more believable than her making up a story that has no witnesses.

I am not attacking the victim, I'm merely formulating an opinion based on what I've read so far & siding with the home-owner, who happens to be the football player. Siding with the player is not always the case, it just happens to be in this particular case.

In todays sue-happy world, people are sueing people over anything & winning.


While calling a the supposed Victim a person who is out for money may be your opinion I fail to see how it is not attacking her character. Merely calling it an opinion does not make it less confrontational lol.

I think she is a skank.........but I'm not attacking her that is my opinion.

singersp
11-29-2006, 07:26 AM
"Del" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Del" wrote:

This is not a problem here, this is a problem with society and you see it in all cases weather it be rape assault abuse........anything people are way too quick to go out of their way to attack the person claiming the crime has been commited. IMO it's in poor taste.

She isn't even accusing anyone in particular all she is saying is I got assaulted at this guys house. The fact that she didn't report anything sexual that she didnt go to hospital would make you think why would a 22 year old girl who was trying to get money tell a story so tame?



Because it did happen. No matter how tame it might be. A tame story that actually happened with witnesses is going to be more believable than her making up a story that has no witnesses.

I am not attacking the victim, I'm merely formulating an opinion based on what I've read so far & siding with the home-owner, who happens to be the football player. Siding with the player is not always the case, it just happens to be in this particular case.

In todays sue-happy world, people are sueing people over anything & winning.


While calling a the supposed Victim a person who is out for money may be your opinion I fail to see how it is not attacking her character. Merely calling it an opinion does not make it less confrontational lol.

I think she is a skank.........but I'm not attacking her that is my opinion.


And that is your opinion & you are entitled to it.

Are you saying people who formulated opinions about the Love boat, Culpepper, Smoot & O.J. before all the evidence was known wrong?

Del Rio
11-29-2006, 07:36 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"Del" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Del" wrote:

This is not a problem here, this is a problem with society and you see it in all cases weather it be rape assault abuse........anything people are way too quick to go out of their way to attack the person claiming the crime has been commited. IMO it's in poor taste.

She isn't even accusing anyone in particular all she is saying is I got assaulted at this guys house. The fact that she didn't report anything sexual that she didnt go to hospital would make you think why would a 22 year old girl who was trying to get money tell a story so tame?



Because it did happen. No matter how tame it might be. A tame story that actually happened with witnesses is going to be more believable than her making up a story that has no witnesses.

I am not attacking the victim, I'm merely formulating an opinion based on what I've read so far & siding with the home-owner, who happens to be the football player. Siding with the player is not always the case, it just happens to be in this particular case.

In todays sue-happy world, people are sueing people over anything & winning.


While calling a the supposed Victim a person who is out for money may be your opinion I fail to see how it is not attacking her character. Merely calling it an opinion does not make it less confrontational lol.

I think she is a skank.........but I'm not attacking her that is my opinion.


And that is your opinion & you are entitled to it.

Are you saying people who formulated opinions about the Love boat, Culpepper, Smoot & O.J. before all the evidence was known wrong?


I said it was in poor taste, I don't know if it is wrong because what you think probably doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot, and the same goes for me.

But yeah I would say if a person made accusations about a persons character before the facts were out, in a criminal case that they were being ignorant at the very least.

Are they wrong? I don't know and I never said they were. I didn't set out to change your mind, I never said you weren't entitled to an opinion I just think it is ignorant to say shit like that when you have no idea.

It is a myscopic view of society because many health agencies believe cases of rape, abuse go unmentioned because the people do not want to deal with the bullshit they will have to go through from people who have no clue, but feel the need to judge them, slander them, and make assumptions about their character, their intentions, and the facts.

NordicNed
11-29-2006, 06:06 PM
I can't believe this topic has even gotten up to 6 pages...





Just another Soap Opera Happening in the World of Pro Sports if you ask me.....





Let those who are supposed to handle a case like this, handle it, as for me, doesn't have a dam thing to do with me and I could care less......







Bunch of hog wash if you ask me.....

DaVizzles
11-29-2006, 07:17 PM
Chea CHea this is kind of akward but how many drops does T-will have i want to know also how many does T.O have i cant find this stat anywhere



GODS GIFT TO ERFF

Bretto
11-29-2006, 09:53 PM
I don't know about TO but Twill has 11 I believe.

skum
11-30-2006, 04:12 PM
SMOOT ACCUSED OF ASSAULT, BUT WON'T BE CHARGED

As we suspected, cornerback Fred Smoot is the member of the Minnesota Vikings who was under investigation for assault.
Per the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Smoot won't be charged.

The incident occurred at approximately 4:00 a.m. on November 21, during a party at Smoot's home.

"There was a party at a Viking's house and this woman was told to leave and it was more verbal than physical," Olson said. "They escorted her from the house, which she perceived to be an assault."

The woman claims that Smoot pushed her out by throat.
Witness statements failed to corroborate her version of the events, and the case has been closed.

The news might help to explain the team's decision to demote Smoot for last Sunday's game against Arizona.
Coach Brad Childress has shown that he has a short fuse for off-field antics.

And though we're not in the business of telling folks how to grieve, why would Smoot had a late-night party at his house so soon after the death of his half-brother in an auto accident?
Smoot went to Mississippi for the funeral, and ultimately missed the team's November 12 game against the Packers.

We're not saying it's wrong.
It's just, well, odd.

baumy300
11-30-2006, 04:16 PM
I don't know what to say about that man anymore...

I guess if I really did party with him I would spend a'lot of time in jail.

NodakPaul
11-30-2006, 04:40 PM
"baumy300" wrote:


I don't know what to say about that man anymore...

I guess if I really did party with him I would spend a'lot of time in jail.


This is exactly why the police didn't release the name of the player involved (BTW skum, do you have a link?).
baumy, you are writing him off as guilty even though there was more evidence that he was innocent.
Why?

"Witness statements failed to corroborate her version of the events, and the case has been closed."

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Sigh... And whoever wrote the article that skum quotes are kinda high on themselves.
Complaining that Smoot had a party two weeks after his brother's funeral?
When my wife's grandfather dies, we stayed up well into the night drinking to his memory and telling stories about him.
Does that make me a bad person too.

I hate how judgmental some people can be.

OchoCinco
11-30-2006, 04:40 PM
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b237/GDAVIKES842002/1225089045.jpg


i'M FRED SMOOT BEEEOOOOCCHHH.......get out my house!!!!!!!!!!!!!

cogitans
11-30-2006, 04:46 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"baumy300" wrote:


I don't know what to say about that man anymore...

I guess if I really did party with him I would spend a'lot of time in jail.


This is exactly why the police didn't release the name of the player involved (BTW skum, do you have a link?).
baumy, you are writing him off as guilty even though there was more evidence that he was innocent.
Why?

"Witness statements failed to corroborate her version of the events, and the case has been closed."

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Sigh... And whoever wrote the article that skum quotes are kinda high on themselves.
Complaining that Smoot had a party two weeks after his brother's funeral?
When my wife's grandfather dies, we stayed up well into the night drinking to his memory and telling stories about him.
Does that make me a bad person too.

I hate how judgmental some people can be.


It's a ProfootballTalk (http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm)article

The overall style of writing gave it away
;)

NodakPaul
11-30-2006, 05:06 PM
Thanks for the link.
This hardly seems like a legit assault IMHO.

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/16132400.htm


A 22-year-old woman told police Smoot assaulted her Nov. 21, but witness statements — even from her friends — failed to corroborate her story and the case has been closed, said the lead investigator in the case, Sgt. Bob Olson.


She told police that as she got up, she accidentally kicked Smoot's car.

She accidentally kicked his car?
How do you accidently kick someone's car? ::)

UndisputedVike
11-30-2006, 05:33 PM
Well there you go, I had a hunch it was Smoot. This maybe part of the reason he was benched, it didn't make sense to begin with, now it does.

ultravikingfan
11-30-2006, 06:21 PM
Gee, am I supposed to be surprised by the fact that once I started saying good things about Smoot that there is a possibility that he jammed his cranium up his ace?

OchoCinco
11-30-2006, 06:25 PM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:


Gee, am I supposed to be surprised by the fact that once I started saying good things about Smoot that there is a possibility that he jammed his cranium up his ace?




Actually the medical terminology is Rectal Cranial Inversion ( aka headed down the hershey highway..or...let me take a closer look at what I ate last night syndrome....or Onterrio Smith's disease)

singersp
11-30-2006, 06:25 PM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:


Gee, am I supposed to be surprised by the fact that once I started saying good things about Smoot that there is a possibility that he jammed his cranium up his ace?




For what? Her friends even wouldn't corroborate her story.


witness statements — even from her friends — failed to corroborate her story and the case has been closed, said the lead investigator in the case, Sgt. Bob Olson.



"There was a party at a Viking's house and this woman was told to leave and it was more verbal than physical," Olson said. "They escorted her from the house, which she perceived to be an assault."





The woman told police she wanted a restraining order against Smoot and asked how to sue the player, according to the police report.

OchoCinco
11-30-2006, 06:28 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"ultravikingfan" wrote:


Gee, am I supposed to be surprised by the fact that once I started saying good things about Smoot that there is a possibility that he jammed his cranium up his ace?




For what? Her friends even wouldn't coaberate her story.



Hey how'd you get out of my basement......

ultravikingfan
11-30-2006, 06:34 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"ultravikingfan" wrote:


Gee, am I supposed to be surprised by the fact that once I started saying good things about Smoot that there is a possibility that he jammed his cranium up his ace?




For what? Her friends even wouldn't corroborate her story.


witness statements — even from her friends — failed to corroborate her story and the case has been closed, said the lead investigator in the case, Sgt. Bob Olson.



"There was a party at a Viking's house and this woman was told to leave and it was more verbal than physical," Olson said. "They escorted her from the house, which she perceived to be an assault."





The woman told police she wanted a restraining order against Smoot and asked how to sue the player, according to the police report.



That is why I carefully worded it with "possibility".
;)

Still not surprised.

singersp
11-30-2006, 06:35 PM
I guess when it comes to Smoot, you are guilty until proven innocent & even when you are proven innocent, you are still judged as guilty.

OchoCinco
11-30-2006, 06:38 PM
"singersp" wrote:


I guess when it comes to Smoot, you are guilty until proven innocent & even when you are proven innocent, you are still judged as guilty.


Why was he having a party anyway?? Didn't his brother just die a few days ago????

singersp
11-30-2006, 06:42 PM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"ultravikingfan" wrote:


Gee, am I supposed to be surprised by the fact that once I started saying good things about Smoot that there is a possibility that he jammed his cranium up his ace?




For what? Her friends even wouldn't corroborate her story.


witness statements — even from her friends — failed to corroborate her story and the case has been closed, said the lead investigator in the case, Sgt. Bob Olson.



"There was a party at a Viking's house and this woman was told to leave and it was more verbal than physical," Olson said. "They escorted her from the house, which she perceived to be an assault."





The woman told police she wanted a restraining order against Smoot and asked how to sue the player, according to the police report.



That is why I carefully worded it with "possibility".

;)

Still not surprised.


Sounds to me like there is no possibility. She said she was pushed out the door & fell & her friends wouldn't corroberate her story.

Who escorted her out? The article says "They" meaning Smoot & someone(s) else.

I'm not surprised Smoot was having a party though.

singersp
11-30-2006, 06:43 PM
"gdavikes84" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


I guess when it comes to Smoot, you are guilty until proven innocent & even when you are proven innocent, you are still judged as guilty.


Why was he having a party anyway?? Didn't his brother just die a few days ago????


It was a few weeks ago, not a few days ago.

PurplePumpkin
11-30-2006, 08:31 PM
Well the woman sounds like a gold digger!
To bad for Smoot I'm sure is last thing he needs more bad publicity
Well no charges anyway ...I'm sure if she thought she had a case she would be after every penny she could. IMO

BadlandsVikings
11-30-2006, 08:41 PM
"WVV" wrote:


Oh wonderful, just what we need.
:(

Blame Smoot


I'm not happy about it, but I guessed right, What do I win?

Ltrey33
11-30-2006, 08:45 PM
Damnit Smoot....at least he's not going to get into legal trouble though. That guy is just a shit magnet.

singersp
11-30-2006, 09:03 PM
"PurplePumpkin" wrote:


Well the woman sounds like a gold digger!
To bad for Smoot I'm sure is last thing he needs more bad publicity
Well no charges anyway ...I'm sure if she thought she had a case she would be after every penny she could. IMO


What made you think that? This quote from the police report
;D


The woman told police she wanted a restraining order against Smoot and asked how to sue the player, according to the police report.

happy camper
11-30-2006, 09:33 PM
him having a party is irrelevent when it comes to the timing

when someone dies, you must make an effort to not let it control you. you gotta move on. who cares if smoot was having a party.

digital420
12-01-2006, 03:49 AM
not to sound to much like i'm justifying anything.. but..

how do u know what kinda party it was?


what if it was a memorial party?
what if it was 8 guys from the team getting together with smoot to help him keep some focus?
maybe just talking and hanging out..

i've lost a few very close friends.. it took weeks before i was even able to deal with 1 of them.. and then it was 5 of my friends coming over and taking me out to get over it.

now say.. one or 2 people came with cause they did.. or someone brought them.. who knows.. we wern't there!! we don't even know who else was there.. and ok.. lets say yer a teamate of smoot, or smoot himself.. u gonna make the guy look soft by saying.. he was having trouble dealing with the death so we all went over as a support group.. naa. u'll say.. we had a small party..


i'm not justifying it.. just trying to keep some balance in the viewpoints.

now as for the girl. from the begining this whole acusation had some.. not correct feelings to it.
she was so injured and distraught that she went home sobered up and went to the police the next day. asking how to sue the player? who knows.. maybe she was trying to get some and they kicked her out because it wasn't that kinda party..

just cause smoot is a pro player.. been in trouble before he's gonna get this kinda thing.. he didn't do anything illegeal, he didn't try to go somewhere and cause trouble.. he was @ home.. but cause of his past and his job.. the media flooded our eyes with printed bla bla about the incident.

it's amazing though to view the movement of blame even among ourselves. this thread could be used as a case study for environmental influences in social justice.

DiGiTaL

OchoCinco
12-01-2006, 07:31 AM
"digital420" wrote:


not to sound to much like i'm justifying anything.. but..

how do u know what kinda party it was?


what if it was a memorial party?
what if it was 8 guys from the team getting together with smoot to help him keep some focus?
maybe just talking and hanging out..

i've lost a few very close friends.. it took weeks before i was even able to deal with 1 of them.. and then it was 5 of my friends coming over and taking me out to get over it.

now say.. one or 2 people came with cause they did.. or someone brought them.. who knows.. we wern't there!! we don't even know who else was there.. and ok.. lets say yer a teamate of smoot, or smoot himself.. u gonna make the guy look soft by saying.. he was having trouble dealing with the death so we all went over as a support group.. naa. u'll say.. we had a small party..


i'm not justifying it.. just trying to keep some balance in the viewpoints.

now as for the girl. from the begining this whole acusation had some.. not correct feelings to it.
she was so injured and distraught that she went home sobered up and went to the police the next day. asking how to sue the player? who knows.. maybe she was trying to get some and they kicked her out because it wasn't that kinda party..

just cause smoot is a pro player.. been in trouble before he's gonna get this kinda thing.. he didn't do anything illegeal, he didn't try to go somewhere and cause trouble.. he was @ home.. but cause of his past and his job.. the media flooded our eyes with printed bla bla about the incident.

it's amazing though to view the movement of blame even among ourselves. this thread could be used as a case study for environmental influences in social justice.
DiGiTaL





oh my gosh ....that's just what I was thinking..... ::)

Let's check this guys party planning history...I doubt they were eating fondue and memorializing his brother.....Smoot is being paid millions to play football...maybe he should try to focus a little bit harder on that and then have a wild blowout hooker bash for himself.

singersp
12-01-2006, 07:39 AM
"gdavikes84" wrote:



Let's check this guys party planning history...I doubt they were eating fondue and memorializing his brother.....Smoot is being paid millions to play football...maybe he should try to focus a little bit harder on that and then have a wild blowout hooker bash for himself.


What makes you think Smoot was having a wild blowout hooker bash for himself?

There have been no indications of that.

OchoCinco
12-01-2006, 07:50 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"gdavikes84" wrote:



Let's check this guys party planning history...I doubt they were eating fondue and memorializing his brother.....Smoot is being paid millions to play football...maybe he should try to focus a little bit harder on that and then have a wild blowout hooker bash for himself.


What makes you think Smoot was having a wild blowout hooker bash for himself?

There have been no indications of that.




Let's be real....this guy has a less than stellar history.....just playin the devils advocate so don't get your panties all in a wad Johnny Cochran.
I think the statement is " an amatuer practices to try and get it right, a professional practices so he never gets it wrong." Our team is 5-6, our pass defense is porous, he has been a victom of some reciever beatdowns, he has been demoted and replaced by a rookie. He gets paid millions of dollars, why not spend a little time polishing your craft and a little less time smearing your and your teams image. Spend a little less time partying and bling blinging and watch a little game film or lift some weights (ala corey chavous). Just my opinion...the rest speaks for itself.

singersp
12-01-2006, 07:58 AM
"gdavikes84" wrote:

Let's be real....this guy has a less than stellar history.....just playin the devils advocate so don't get your panties all in a wad Johnny Cochran.
I think the statement is " an amatuer practices to try and get it right, a professional practices so he never gets it wrong." Our team is 5-6, our pass defense is porous, he has been a victom of some reciever beatdowns, he has been demoted and replaced by a rookie. He gets paid millions of dollars, why not spend a little time polishing your craft and a little less time smearing your and your teams image. Spend a little less time partying and bling blinging and watch a little game film or lift some weights (ala corey chavous). Just my opinion...the rest speaks for itself.


As have all our DB's, not just Smoot. Yet he is the scapegoat for our poor pass defense. Other than Whitaker, You rarely hear any of the other DB's or LB's names being mentioned when they give up a play.

OchoCinco
12-01-2006, 08:10 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"gdavikes84" wrote:

Let's be real....this guy has a less than stellar history.....just playin the devils advocate so don't get your panties all in a wad Johnny Cochran.
I think the statement is " an amatuer practices to try and get it right, a professional practices so he never gets it wrong." Our team is 5-6, our pass defense is porous, he has been a victom of some reciever beatdowns, he has been demoted and replaced by a rookie. He gets paid millions of dollars, why not spend a little time polishing your craft and a little less time smearing your and your teams image. Spend a little less time partying and bling blinging and watch a little game film or lift some weights (ala corey chavous). Just my opinion...the rest speaks for itself.


As have all our DB's, not just Smoot. Yet he is the scapegoat for our poor pass defense. Other than Whitaker, You rarely hear any of the other DB's or LB's names being mentioned when they give up a play.


True...but he is the only one who has been demoted so the coaches must see something we don't. I agree he has been a scapegoat, but then he should quit putting the spotlight on himself and get back to business.

singersp
12-01-2006, 08:31 AM
"gdavikes84" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"gdavikes84" wrote:

Let's be real....this guy has a less than stellar history.....just playin the devils advocate so don't get your panties all in a wad Johnny Cochran.
I think the statement is " an amatuer practices to try and get it right, a professional practices so he never gets it wrong." Our team is 5-6, our pass defense is porous, he has been a victom of some reciever beatdowns, he has been demoted and replaced by a rookie. He gets paid millions of dollars, why not spend a little time polishing your craft and a little less time smearing your and your teams image. Spend a little less time partying and bling blinging and watch a little game film or lift some weights (ala corey chavous). Just my opinion...the rest speaks for itself.


As have all our DB's, not just Smoot. Yet he is the scapegoat for our poor pass defense. Other than Whitaker, You rarely hear any of the other DB's or LB's names being mentioned when they give up a play.


True...but he is the only one who has been demoted so the coaches must see something we don't. I agree he has been a scapegoat, but then he should quit putting the spotlight on himself and get back to business.


And that something would be his poor tackling abilities, IMO. There is no doubt in my mind that Griffin hits harder & wraps up his opponent. Of the two, I'm not sure which one is faster, but IMO, with the type of zone we are playing, reaction & speed must be key factors in the decision process.

I saw the demotion of Smoot as a good thing, for two reasons;

1. It made a change to our defensive backfield & shook things up a bit, sending a message to other starters that their starting position can be lost at any given time.

2. I think it was a bit of a wake up call for Smoot. I noticed during the Cardinals game that he was actually wrapping up the receivers instead of dropping a shoulder into them & just trying to knock them off their feet like he has been guilty of in the past.

whackthepack
12-01-2006, 09:45 AM
"digital420" wrote:


not to sound to much like i'm justifying anything.. but..

how do u know what kinda party it was?


what if it was a memorial party?
what if it was 8 guys from the team getting together with smoot to help him keep some focus?
maybe just talking and hanging out..

i've lost a few very close friends.. it took weeks before i was even able to deal with 1 of them.. and then it was 5 of my friends coming over and taking me out to get over it.

now say.. one or 2 people came with cause they did.. or someone brought them.. who knows.. we wern't there!! we don't even know who else was there.. and ok.. lets say yer a teamate of smoot, or smoot himself.. u gonna make the guy look soft by saying.. he was having trouble dealing with the death so we all went over as a support group.. naa. u'll say.. we had a small party..


i'm not justifying it.. just trying to keep some balance in the viewpoints.

now as for the girl. from the begining this whole acusation had some.. not correct feelings to it.
she was so injured and distraught that she went home sobered up and went to the police the next day. asking how to sue the player? who knows.. maybe she was trying to get some and they kicked her out because it wasn't that kinda party..

just cause smoot is a pro player.. been in trouble before he's gonna get this kinda thing.. he didn't do anything illegeal, he didn't try to go somewhere and cause trouble.. he was @ home.. but cause of his past and his job.. the media flooded our eyes with printed bla bla about the incident.

it's amazing though to view the movement of blame even among ourselves. this thread could be used as a case study for environmental influences in social justice.

DiGiTaL





If you read the first few articles closer it was reported that they were at a bar until it closed at 2:00 am, then people were invited over to Smoot's house and this happened at 4:00 am.
It wasn't a group of people coming over to support him because of his brothers death, there is no indication of that anywhere in any article I have read.



And for the people that are saying Smoot is being blamed unjustly, well if you keep putting yourself in these positions (like Smoot has) when you are a high profile person then people are going to assume that you are a trouble maker and that you are a punk, and it seems that he has done that enough so people assume that it is him and not the situation.


So because of his big mouth when he got to Minnesota and him not backing it up on the field, then the Boat incident, then the New Years eve incident, then bad mouthing Tice in the Press, then all the injuries and then getting replaced in the starting lineup last year and this year he put himself in this position nobody else did, just him!

NodakPaul
12-01-2006, 11:03 AM
"whackthepack" wrote:


So because of his big mouth when he got to Minnesota and him not backing it up on the field, then the Boat incident, then the New Years eve incident, then bad mouthing Tice in the Press, then all the injuries and then getting replaced in the starting lineup last year and this year he put himself in this position nobody else did, just him!


So because you don't like him he is automatically guilty of anything he is accused of.
And it is his fault.
Man, I hope you never get put on a jury. ;)

And what does his being injury prone have to do with his off field behavior?
Or bad-mouthing Tice.
Tice deserved to be bad mouthed - he was a horrible, horrible coach.
Getting replaced in the starting lineup?
I thought that had more to do with his performance on the field...

What if the player had been Brad Johnson?
Or Kevin Williams?
Would they have been judged guilty without evidence like Smoot?

snowinapril
12-01-2006, 11:36 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:




So because you don't like him he is automatically guilty of anything he is accused of.
And it is his fault.
Man, I hope you never get put on a jury. ;)

And what does his being injury prone have to do with his off field behavior?
Or bad-mouthing Tice.
Tice deserved to be bad mouthed - he was a horrible, horrible coach.
Getting replaced in the starting lineup?
I thought that had more to do with his performance on the field...

All negatives in a fans eyes
Additional spotlight attention, the guy is under a microscope because of his mouth.


What if the player had been Brad Johnson?
Or Kevin Williams?
Would they have been judged guilty without evidence like Smoot?


Brad = No
KWill = Yes, prior off the field problems.

One strike
Two strikes
Three strikes



4,5,6,7,8........

whackthepack
12-01-2006, 11:50 AM
"snowinapril" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:




So because you don't like him he is automatically guilty of anything he is accused of.
And it is his fault.
Man, I hope you never get put on a jury. ;)

And what does his being injury prone have to do with his off field behavior?
Or bad-mouthing Tice.
Tice deserved to be bad mouthed - he was a horrible, horrible coach.
Getting replaced in the starting lineup?
I thought that had more to do with his performance on the field...

All negatives in a fans eyes
Additional spotlight attention, the guy is under a microscope because of his mouth.


What if the player had been Brad Johnson?
Or Kevin Williams?
Would they have been judged guilty without evidence like Smoot?


Brad = No
KWill = Yes, prior off the field problems.

One strike
Two strikes
Three strikes



4,5,6,7,8........



Thank you Snow!
And Nodak if you can not understand a post maybe don't post about it!



And Nodak way to take it out of context and just use part of the quote and disregard the rest of the post because it explains why I posted that.


And for the people that are saying Smoot is being blamed unjustly, well if you keep putting yourself in these positions (like Smoot has) when you are a high profile person then people are going to assume that you are a trouble maker and that you are a punk, and it seems that he has done that enough so people assume that it is him and not the situation.


Kind of forgot that part, didn't you.



And for the people that are saying Smoot is being blamed unjustly, well if you keep putting yourself in these positions (like Smoot has) when you are a high profile person then people are going to assume that you are a trouble maker and that you are a punk, and it seems that he has done that enough so people assume that it is him and not the situation

So because of his big mouth when he got to Minnesota and him not backing it up on the field, then the Boat incident, then the New Years eve incident, then bad mouthing Tice in the Press, then all the injuries and then getting replaced in the starting lineup last year and this year he put himself in this position nobody else did, just him!






I never once referred to myself thinking he was guilty of anything, I expressed why people think badly of him and accuse him so quite putting words in my mouth!


And who said I hate Smoot?
Actually before you joined the posters at PP.O adopted Viking players, and guess who my adopted player was?
times up!
Fred Smoot.

NodakPaul
12-01-2006, 12:08 PM
"snowinapril" wrote:


Additional spotlight attention, the guy is under a microscope because of his mouth.


Fair enough.
I don't agree with it but I can see your point of view.
When someone is in the spotlight, every action will be visible to the public, and therefore scrutinized.
Smoot does have a bad track record in Minnesota, and many fans, for some reason, group everything bad together.

"whackthepack" wrote:


Thank you Snow!
And Nodak if you can not understand a post maybe don't post about it!


Never said I didn't understand it, and there really isn't reason to be a dick this early in the morning.
I was saying that I think the act of deciding that someone is guilty in leau of evidence supporting his innocence just because you don't like him is wrong, both morally and legally when applied to our justice process.
I understand people who make judgments like that all too well...

snowinapril
12-01-2006, 12:14 PM
Actually think Smoot could be a scapegoat on the field but not off the field.

Getting yourself into problems off the field is totally different.

I am going to use an extreme example here, way out there, to make a point.

If I have a crackhead family member or friend, and I go to law school (hard work) and
become a judge and now am running for office, I am not going to go hangout with a crackhead friend.
Basically, if the people you want to hangout with don't know what is best to help you continue with what you are doing then you stay away from them.
Immerse yourself into what you are doing, do the best job possible.
It isn't all fun and games.

Smoot is doing nothing to help himself.
He has been paid and at this point he must not want to play football at a high level anymore.


JMHO, Smoot is just doing what he needs to to get by.

whackthepack
12-01-2006, 12:17 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"snowinapril" wrote:


Additional spotlight attention, the guy is under a microscope because of his mouth.


Fair enough.
I don't agree with it but I can see your point of view.
When someone is in the spotlight, every action will be visible to the public, and therefore scrutinized.

Smoot does have a bad track record in Minnesota, and many fans, for some reason, group everything bad together.

"whackthepack" wrote:


Thank you Snow!
And Nodak if you can not understand a post maybe don't post about it!


Never said I didn't understand it, and there really isn't reason to be a slick willy this early in the morning.
I was saying that I think the act of deciding that someone is guilty in leau of evidence supporting his innocence just because you don't like him is wrong, both morally and legally when applied to our justice process.
I understand people who make judgments like that all too well...



And Nodak way to take it out of context and just use part of the quote and disregard the rest of the post because it explains why I posted that.


And for the people that are saying Smoot is being blamed unjustly, well if you keep putting yourself in these positions (like Smoot has) when you are a high profile person then people are going to assume that you are a trouble maker and that you are a punk, and it seems that he has done that enough so people assume that it is him and not the situation.


Kind of forgot that part, didn't you.



And for the people that are saying Smoot is being blamed unjustly, well if you keep putting yourself in these positions (like Smoot has) when you are a high profile person then people are going to assume that you are a trouble maker and that you are a punk, and it seems that he has done that enough so people assume that it is him and not the situation

So because of his big mouth when he got to Minnesota and him not backing it up on the field, then the Boat incident, then the New Years eve incident, then bad mouthing Tice in the Press, then all the injuries and then getting replaced in the starting lineup last year and this year he put himself in this position nobody else did, just him!






I never once referred to myself thinking he was guilty of anything, I expressed why people think badly of him and accuse him so quit putting words in my mouth!


And who said I hate Smoot?
Actually before you joined the posters at PP.O adopted Viking players, and guess who my adopted player was?

times up!
Fred Smoot.

snowinapril
12-01-2006, 12:19 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"whackthepack" wrote:


Thank you Snow!
And Nodak if you can not understand a post maybe don't post about it!


Never said I didn't understand it, and there really isn't reason to be a slick willy this early in the morning.
I was saying that I think the act of deciding that someone is guilty in leau of evidence supporting his innocence just because you don't like him is wrong, both morally and legally when applied to our justice process.
I understand people who make judgments like that all too well...


True!

I wasn't necessarily saying he was guilty in this case, just that he makes bad choices off the field, and he has done so in the past.
Leads one to steer that direction.
Final verdict is not in yet on this incident.

OchoCinco
12-01-2006, 12:20 PM
"snowinapril" wrote:


Actually think Smoot could be a scapegoat on the field but not off the field.

Getting yourself into problems off the field is totally different.

I am going to use an extreme example here, way out there, to make a point.

If I have a crackhead family member or friend, and I go to law school (hard work) and
become a judge and now am running for office, I am not going to go hangout with a crackhead friend.
Basically, if the people you want to hangout with don't know what is best to help you continue with what you are doing then you stay away from them.
Immerse yourself into what you are doing, do the best job possible.
It isn't all fun and games.

Smoot is doing nothing to help himself.
He has been paid and at this point he must not want to play football at a high level anymore.


JMHO, Smoot is just doing what he needs to to get by.


Like I said earlier "amateurs practice to do things right, professionals practice to not do them wrong". Get your head out the clouds and play ball, and maybe we will scrutinize less of what you do...........

NodakPaul
12-01-2006, 01:07 PM
"whackthepack" wrote:

*snip*


** edit - in retrospect, there is really no point hijacking this thread to argue with someone about semantics and intent, so i am editing that part of my response out. **

snow, I find myself agreeing with you.
I admittedly tend to be slightly defensive about Smoot because of what I perceived as unwarranted negative fan reaction after the Carolina game... but you definitely have a point.
I think he may have given up on the Vikings at this point (or possibly the NFL in general), and is not putting forth the effort he is being paid for.
Disappointing...

My hopes now are that he still retains a decent amount of trade value in the offseason.

singersp
12-01-2006, 07:40 PM
"gdavikes84" wrote:


"snowinapril" wrote:


Actually think Smoot could be a scapegoat on the field but not off the field.

Getting yourself into problems off the field is totally different.

I am going to use an extreme example here, way out there, to make a point.

If I have a crackhead family member or friend, and I go to law school (hard work) and
become a judge and now am running for office, I am not going to go hangout with a crackhead friend.
Basically, if the people you want to hangout with don't know what is best to help you continue with what you are doing then you stay away from them.
Immerse yourself into what you are doing, do the best job possible.
It isn't all fun and games.

Smoot is doing nothing to help himself.
He has been paid and at this point he must not want to play football at a high level anymore.


JMHO, Smoot is just doing what he needs to to get by.


Like I said earlier "amateurs practice to do things right, professionals practice to not do them wrong". Get your head out the clouds and play ball, and maybe we will scrutinize less of what you do...........


Then where is your criticism of McKinnie? The Love boat was not a Smoot part of 1. McKinnie was there feasting away. Then there was the incident where him & Memo were getting rid of party trash at a local dump, not to mention the incident ast the gas station last year. He has had his share of off-field incidents as well.

His play on the field has been less than spectacular & he is getting burned on pass plays right & left. Then we turn around and throw all kinds of money at him.

singersp
12-01-2006, 07:47 PM
"snowinapril" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"whackthepack" wrote:


Thank you Snow!
And Nodak if you can not understand a post maybe don't post about it!


Never said I didn't understand it, and there really isn't reason to be a slick willy this early in the morning.
I was saying that I think the act of deciding that someone is guilty in leau of evidence supporting his innocence just because you don't like him is wrong, both morally and legally when applied to our justice process.
I understand people who make judgments like that all too well...


True!

I wasn't necessarily saying he was guilty in this case, just that he makes bad choices off the field, and he has done so in the past.
Leads one to steer that direction.
Final verdict is not in yet on this incident.


??? It's not? Sounds to me like it has.

1. Woman claims Smoot pushed her out the door & she fell & asks police how she can go about suing Smoot.

2. Witnesses, including her friends says she's lying & that it didn't happen that way.

3. Police find no evidence of wrong doing, don't charge Smoot & close the case.

4. Woman withdraws charges against Smoot.

cajunvike
12-01-2006, 08:25 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"snowinapril" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"whackthepack" wrote:


Thank you Snow!
And Nodak if you can not understand a post maybe don't post about it!


Never said I didn't understand it, and there really isn't reason to be a slick willy this early in the morning.
I was saying that I think the act of deciding that someone is guilty in leau of evidence supporting his innocence just because you don't like him is wrong, both morally and legally when applied to our justice process.
I understand people who make judgments like that all too well...


True!

I wasn't necessarily saying he was guilty in this case, just that he makes bad choices off the field, and he has done so in the past.
Leads one to steer that direction.
Final verdict is not in yet on this incident.


??? It's not? Sounds to me like it has.

1. Woman claims Smoot pushed her out the door & she fell & asks police how she can go about suing Smoot.

2. Witnesses, including her friends says she's lying & that it didn't happen that way.

3. Police find no evidence of wrong doing, don't charge Smoot & close the case.

4. Woman withdraws charges against Smoot.


Some non-Viking needs to go over and pimpslap that woman!
:D

whackthepack
12-02-2006, 11:18 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"gdavikes84" wrote:


"snowinapril" wrote:


Actually think Smoot could be a scapegoat on the field but not off the field.

Getting yourself into problems off the field is totally different.

I am going to use an extreme example here, way out there, to make a point.

If I have a crackhead family member or friend, and I go to law school (hard work) and
become a judge and now am running for office, I am not going to go hangout with a crackhead friend.
Basically, if the people you want to hangout with don't know what is best to help you continue with what you are doing then you stay away from them.
Immerse yourself into what you are doing, do the best job possible.
It isn't all fun and games.

Smoot is doing nothing to help himself.
He has been paid and at this point he must not want to play football at a high level anymore.


JMHO, Smoot is just doing what he needs to to get by.


Like I said earlier "amateurs practice to do things right, professionals practice to not do them wrong". Get your head out the clouds and play ball, and maybe we will scrutinize less of what you do...........


Then where is your criticism of McKinnie? The Love boat was not a Smoot part of 1. McKinnie was there feasting away. Then there was the incident where him & Memo were getting rid of party trash at a local dump, not to mention the incident ast the gas station last year. He has had his share of off-field incidents as well.

His play on the field has been less than spectacular & he is getting burned on pass plays right & left. Then we turn around and throw all kinds of money at him.



People have been criticizing McKinnie all year (including me) and I was not happy that we resigned him because I was hoping we would go after a left tackle in FA!
I think McKinnie is overrated and gets burned way to often from a speed rusher or if a team overloads his side he never seems to pick the right guy to block.

The Bobbie and Steve's incident last year was nothing, he was told to leave by a cop and he didn't do it fast enough, it was a pile of crap.
And the party trash incident was nothing also, channel 9 sensationalized the incident for rating and they had a stem of grapes they showed on TV and indicated they were going to have it tested to see if it was marijuana it was so ridiculous that I was laughing at them, and I called their station and told them as much.

But again I am not in favor of keeping McKinnie because he is over paid and isn't doing the job, and unless he starts I think we wasted 48 million dollars.


But one thing Mckinnie doesn't do is run his mouth in public like Smoot and that is one of reasons why Smoot gets such criticism if you are going to talk the talk then you have to back it up on the field or you look like a punk, and Smoot is definitely looking punkish.

singersp
12-02-2006, 11:48 AM
"whackthepack" wrote:



The Bobbie and Steve's incident last year was nothing, he was told to leave by a cop and he didn't do it fast enough, it was a pile of crap.
And the party trash incident was nothing also, channel 9 sensationalized the incident for rating and they had a stem of grapes they showed on TV and indicated they were going to have it tested to see if it was marijuana it was so ridiculous that I was laughing at them, and I called their station and told them as much.


That's exactly my point. It wasn't a big deal & neither is this. A woman makes false accusations against a player & he takes the brunt of the blame for it.

"whackthepack" wrote:



But one thing Mckinnie doesn't do is run his mouth in public like Smoot and that is one of reasons why Smoot gets such criticism if going to talk the talk then you have to back it up on the field or you look like a punk, and Smoot is definitely looking punkish.


Smoot has run his mouth in the past, but I don't recall any incidents this year of him running his mouth against other teams/players. From what I've been reading, Sharper & Smith have been doing enough of that this year.

Smoot has been playing good ball lately, but not as good as Griffin, thus the demotion.

If we loose a game, it is not because one or a few players were trash talking & can't back it up. It is a team sport & the team fails to execute as a whole or makes stupid mistakes that results in penalties & turnovers.

I don't think we've lost any games as a result of our defensive play, sans the Patriots game, in as much as we have on the offensive side of the ball. Our failure to put up TD's in the redzone has cost us dearly this year.