Kobe Bryant - What’s his legacy?

[Cascarino]

On the discussion of consent, I’m not sure why people are arguing about whether she highlighted her lack of consent, she specifically stated she both verbally and physically asked him to stop.

No I'm just saying that there are more accurate depictions of Kobe's legacy being written in the media and basketball oriented forums that of course include the case but have a lot more nuance and perspective. Not comparing cheating to (alleged) rape.

This thread was created (both op and staff) for the purpose of discussing the allegation because people were upset it was brought up. That’s why the allegation is the main focus.
I don’t frequent basketball forums so I’m not sure how nuanced their eulogies are. I will say that I’ve noticed those on this forum who aren’t interested in basketball who have looked at the evidence are likely to think he was guilty. Where as on this forum those who liked Kobe or watch basketball regularly take the opposite stance. I think you’ve been fairly balanced and about aware of the details, but several posters who have contributed to this thread in support of Kobe have clearly done so without having actually read up on the incident. Which I find to be disturbing. Their fully willing to dismiss the victim without bothering to research the details.

 

[cafecillos]

The logical argument one could make on Kobe's behalf is that there wasn't consent but he genuinely didn't realize that, not that there was consent but the girl doesn't realize it. Which is why we keep pointing to Kobe's statement as being damning.

Very well put.

 

[2cents]

Sorry what’s this about Sony setting Michael Jackson up with fake abuse claims? @Sara125

 

[Siorac]

It is how it works, its exactly how it works. Words mean something and are spoken or written to convey a specific message. In this case they were probably even more scrutinized and used to specifically ensure there was no admission of guilt - much more so than in a casual conversation. If he wanted to "admit to rape" as you and others say he has, his statement would have been different.



I get what you are saying, but its not the greatest of analogies. Death is finite and easily definable. There are many more things in play in a rape/non-rape situation. As much as we would all like such a horrible situation as rape to be black and white, reality tells us its not due to so many possible interpretations.

But no, it's not how it works! If you say 'I don't support the death penalty' then I cannot say that if we take out the word don't from your sentence, then it contradicts your previous stance on the death penalty.

 

[bpet15]

But no, it's not how it works! If you say 'I don't support the death penalty' then I cannot say that if we take out the word don't from your sentence, then it contradicts your previous stance on the death penalty.

You've lost me, completely. If I say "I don't support the death penalty", someone reading my statement can't take the word "don't" out of what I said to make a definitive stance that "I support the death penalty." That is what people are doing with the Kobe statement, removing words to make a stance that "he literally has admitted to rape."

 

[Moby]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Sara125]

Sorry what’s this about Sony setting Michael Jackson up with fake abuse claims? @Sara125

He signed a contract with them and merged his own catalogue meaning he would essentially be getting more money from them out of the deal and also own part of Sony. Not only this but he also owned (part of?) the Beatles catalogue who were signed to Sony. He accused Tommy whatever his name is (the owner of Sony and one of the most powerful guys in the industry) of racism and trying to cheat him and then lo and behold the sexual assault allegations come about.

 

[2cents]

He signed a contract with them and merged his own catalogue meaning he would essentially be getting more money from them out of the deal and also own part of Sony. Not only this but he also owned (part of?) the Beatles catalogue who were signed to Sony. He accused Tommy whatever his name is (the owner of Sony and one of the most powerful guys in the industry) of racism and trying to cheat him and then lo and behold the sexual assault allegations come about.

OK but is there any actual proof?

 

[AFC NimbleThumb]

Kobe’s Legacy.

Viewer Discretion Advised.

 

[Moby]

Which of those was a reference to the rape case? Just so we are clear whether or not to jump on his post with news articles from two decades ago.

 

[Cascarino]

Which of those was a reference to the rape case? Just so we are clear whether or not to jump on his post with news articles from two decades ago.

Why are so many of you chiming in with ‘hey it happened years ago don’t be so anal guys’

that’s not a good defense

 

[Wibble]

He got off because, like I said, the FBI investigated him for 20 YEARS including an extensive search of his house WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE, meaning he didn’t have time to hide any evidence (not like there was any) and all they found was pornographic books (still unopened in their packaging, mind you) sent from fans. Plus the 5 or so accusers all had holes in their stories or had ulterior motives.

The original 1993 accusations even started in the first place because Sony, the biggest record label at the time, didn’t want him to have the biggest piece of the pie once he signed that deal so they set him up.

edit: typo

Yes. Sony are why he was in court. And in no way because he ran a sophisticated paedo operation?

Just because you liked his music doesn't mean he wasn't a kiddy fiddler.

I like Ryan Giggs as a player but he also seems like a rather despicable human being (albeit not on the scale of MJ or OJ or Weinstein).

 

[Wibble]

Sorry what’s this about Sony setting Michael Jackson up with fake abuse claims? @Sara125

It is ludicrous theory from Michael Jackson "enthusiasts" based on a rumor that MJ though Sony, the DA and Judge were conspiring against him.

I think "logic" was that Sony owned half his catalog and if he went bust they got the other half or could buy it for lass than full value or some such nonsense.

 

[Wibble]

My parents believe OJ got off because of Rodney King incident and other injustices, as a gift to the black community to give us a victory.

I think that and the celebrity circus were 2 major factors in his acquittal.

Don't trust anything these opportunists say. But in any case celebs have to settle accusations out of court whether guilty or not. Will Smith says he has a lawyer on a monthly retainer as he gets 16 law suits per year. WILL SMITH

They really don't. Especially not to the tune of $130 million (or whatever huge sum it was). You only pay out that much if you know you are in deep deep trouble and are most likely going to jail.

 

[Siorac]

You've lost me, completely. If I say "I don't support the death penalty", someone reading my statement can't take the word "don't" out of what I said to make a definitive stance that "I support the death penalty." That is what people are doing with the Kobe statement, removing words to make a stance that "he literally has admitted to rape."

One last try, then.

He did admit the girl did not consider the encounter consensual.

He did not admit that he had been aware of this at the time.

Ergo, he admitted that it was a non-consensual sexual encounter, aka rape, with the caveat that he thought it was consensual.

 

[Siorac]

Of course!

Now the problem is we don't know what went down. Some are comfortable inferring from Kobe's statements that in the moment, he understood that consent was withdrawn, and he went ahead with it anyway. How I understand his comments are.. she says I raped her. I believe (present tense) the encounter was consentual (i.e. consent from both sides). I understand how she feels otherwise.

The principle of affirmative consent is utilized in colleges to make sure as much as possible both parties are continuously aware of consent, but it has no standing in law.

I'm not talking about the law at this point. I already said that what we know is probably not enough for a conviction, because of the legal standards that govern the process.

However, I'm not a judge, not a part of the justice system. My opinion is, based on Bryant's apology, that it was rape because the girl felt she did not consent. Whether Bryant was aware of this or not does not change this, it merely changes how it reflects on his character.

 

[AFC NimbleThumb]

One last try, then.

He did admit the girl did not consider the encounter consensual.

He did not admit that he had been aware of this at the time.

Ergo, he admitted that it was a non-consensual sexual encounter, aka rape, with the caveat that he thought it was consensual.

You’re doing exactly what he first pointed out & omitting words to suit the context of the narrative you want to portray.

The statement says, “Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did.”

He says, he believed he was having consensual sex but after hearing her view he sees that she did not - how the hell is this not clear!

He doesn’t admit he had been aware at the time because he. . . “truly believe[d] this encounter to be consensual”.

The context of his statement is clear. He is not in anyway inferring that in the moment he knew & carried on anyway. His statement says he sees it one way & accepts the accuser sees it another.

 

[Siorac]

You’re doing exactly what he first pointed out & omitting words to suit the context of the narrative you want to portray.

The statement says, “Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did.”

He says, he believed he was having consensual sex but after hearing her view he sees that she did not - how the hell is this not clear!

He doesn’t admit he had been aware at the time because he. . . “truly believe[d] this encounter to be consensual”.

The context of his statement is clear. He is not in anyway inferring that in the moment he knew & carried on anyway. His statement says he sees it one way & accepts the accuser sees it another.

Sigh.

Throughout this effing debate I have been saying over and over that whether he knew that the girl did not consent DOES NOT MATTER when it comes to deciding if it's rape or not. Really. It doesn't. At all. She did not see it as consensual, therefore she was raped. That's it. How the hell is THAT not clear?

Again, whether Bryant realised that he did not have her consent in the moment only matters insofar as to how it reflects on his character. But it has no bearing on whether it was rape or not. If we take Bryant at his word, then now he accepts that at that time the girl did not see the encounter as a consensual one. Therefore it was rape.

If you try to feck me in the arse (please don't) and I tell you "Nem, nem, hagyjál békén" and you believe that the sentence means "Yes please feck me in the arse" and proceed to do so, you still raped me. Even if you genuinely thought that I consented.

(For the record, the above sentence means "No, no, leave me alone". Also, because I have to state this here, the above is not a LEGAL discussion, I am not claiming that it's irrefutable proof of the LEGAL CHARGE of rape.)

 

[Prometheus]

Reading this thread is like navigating through a semantic nightmare.

 

[UweBein]

This has always been the most difficult thing for me to get my head around when speaking of these types of cases. Historically, these cases have stemmed from a participant saying "no, stop" or something along those lines. More recently, we speak more and more about giving consent in the form of "ok, yes, we can have sex", etc.

I struggle personally analyzing these cases because "giving consent" and "lack of consent" are two different things for me. If I try to apply them to my personal experiences, I am not sure I can recall a time when a partner has said, "we can have sex" or "yes, you can insert your penis in me." Everything was organic and just kind of progressed. On the other side of the coin, I have had instances where things were getting passionate and a partner specifically stated, "hey, I am not ready to have sex" to which you know where you stand.

I can help you with that.
You find it difficult because you are assuming that your personal experiences are somewhat representative - and let me tell you: they are not. You have experienced only a narrow spectrum of possible interactions. Or were you ever an NBA superstar who tried to have sex with a maid?

I think many people have sex with lack of consent and am not sure lack of consent can be communicated. If a participant says no, that is non-consent for me and not lack of consent. I know it may seem like semantics, but I think this is where many of these cases get bogged down.

For you! But for example in Germany, as of 2-3 years ago, saying "no" was not sufficient from a legal perspective.
I think that shows what kind of culture has been prevalent in the past decades. Now, the things in the USA are not the same, but Kobe's statement in our times is just a pure and clean admission of having raped a woman, whereas 20 years ago it was not. So, there must have been a change in culture in the US as well.
I am just pointing that out, so we are aware that these things are not constant. Merely, they are beeing constantly redefined and debated.

 

[Organic Potatoes]

Reading this thread is like navigating through a semantic nightmare.

No, you meant ‘fever dream.’

 

[Schmeichel's Cartwheel]

Legend of sport, probably top 5 of all time in basketball.

He was never found guilty of rape. Innocent until proven guilty.

 

[bpet15]

One last try, then.

He did admit the girl did not consider the encounter consensual.

He did not admit that he had been aware of this at the time.

Ergo, he admitted that it was a non-consensual sexual encounter, aka rape, with the caveat that he thought it was consensual.

It’s quite obvious we are in two different pages and you aren’t comprehending what I am saying. I thinks it’s best if we just leave it.

 

[Siorac]

It’s quite obvious we are in two different pages and you aren’t comprehending what I am saying. I thinks it’s best if we just leave it.

I think it's the other way around: you don't understand what I'm saying. And it's because our definition of rape differs: you believe BOTH parties need to be aware that one of the parties did not consent to the encounter. I disagree with that.

 

[bpet15]

I think it's the other way around: you don't understand what I'm saying. And it's because our definition of rape differs: you believe BOTH parties need to be aware that one of the parties did not consent to the encounter. I disagree with that.

We aren’t discussing rape. We are discussing his statement and how people are taking it upon themselves to make it say what they want it to say - even though it doesn’t.
Let’s just leave it.

 

[Siorac]

We aren’t discussing rape. We are discussing his statement and how people are taking it upon themselves to make it say what they want it to say - even though it doesn’t.
Let’s just leave it.

I definitely was! I even defined it for you multiple times, strange that you failed to notice it. That's what the case was about, you know. That's what his statement was about, too.

Throughout the debate I maintained my position: the statement undeniably, 100% says that Kobe Bryant had a sexual encounter with a woman and that sexual encounter was not consensual. That the statement says this is absolutely and utterly unquestionable. It's not a matter of interpretation, it's written right there in black and white.

It is indeed not worth to continue to debate with someone who still cannot seem to accept this very simple truth.

 

[oates]

Be astonishing if that became a successful defence. I had sex with this woman, I didn't have her consent but I had mine.

Ridiculous state this thread.

 

[Sara125]

OK but is there any actual proof?

That what? Sony tried to feck him over?

 

[Sara125]

Yes. Sony are why he was in court. And in no way because he ran a sophisticated paedo operation?

Just because you liked his music doesn't mean he wasn't a kiddy fiddler.

I like Ryan Giggs as a player but he also seems like a rather despicable human being (albeit not on the scale of MJ or OJ or Weinstein).

Give me a break so he ran such a huge sophisticated paedo ring yet only 4 kids came out with accusations, bare in mind he probably met and hung around 10s of 1000s of kids in his life, with all 4 having holes in their stories and ulterior motives.

No one has provided actual evidence that he was a kiddy fiddler. Building a ranch because you genuinely love children does not count as proof.

edit: Also it is nothing to do with liking his music. I think R Kelly is one of the best R&B artists of all time but am I going to sit here and say he wasn’t a disgusting, prolific paedophile? No because there is ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

 

[Prometheus]

The apology was apparently written by her attorneys?

The woman had filed a separate civil suit against Bryant, and had agreed to dismissal of the sexual-assault charge against him provided the athlete issued the following apology to his accuser, which was read in court by Bryant’s attorney:

...

https://www.thedailybeast.com/kobe-...ce-the-accusers-story-and-the-half-confession

 

[Sara125]

People love to say MJ got off because of his ‘celebrity status’. I actually think it’s the opposite. Look how many celebrities who are alleged paedophiles, rapists etc. get it swept under the rug yet MJ is the only one who the media continued to hound even after his death.

 

[Fiskey]

People love to say MJ got off because of his ‘celebrity status’. I actually think it’s the opposite. Look how many celebrities who are alleged paedophiles, rapists etc. get it swept under the rug yet MJ is the only one who the media continued to hound even after his death.

Who has gotten it swept under the rug?

 

[Sara125]

Who has gotten it swept under the rug?

Well, firstly, the very person that this thread is about. Not saying KB is innocent or not haven’t looked at the facts properly but the fact that a lot of people didn’t even know about the allegations til his death shows that it was obviously swept under the rug.

It was a well known fact that Elvis Presley had sex with underaged groupies, hell, he even met Priscilla when she was like 13 and he was in his early 20s. Roman Polanski and woody Allen were known too. That’s just off the top of my head there’s many more examples of big Hollywood names getting away with shit.

 

[Fiskey]

Well, firstly, the very person that this thread is about. Not saying KB is innocent or not haven’t looked at the facts properly but the fact that a lot of people didn’t even know about the allegations til his death shows that it was obviously swept under the rug.

It was a well known fact that Elvis Presley had sex with underaged groupies, hell, he even met Priscilla when she was like 13 and he was in his early 20s. Roman Polanski and woody Allen were known too. That’s just off the top of my head there’s many more examples of big Hollywood names getting away with shit.

I don't think you can say its been swept under the carpet with Kobe when there's a 21 page thread regarding the rape on a football forum. I don't think anyone, no matter how famous, trying to get away with paedophilia/rape would have been treated any differently since the 80/90s.

 

[Sara125]

I don't think you can say its been swept under the carpet with Kobe when there's a 21 page thread regarding the rape on a football forum. I don't think anyone, no matter how famous, trying to get away with paedophilia/rape would have been treated any differently since the 80/90s.

Stop being deliberately obtuse. Individuals on a football forum and other forms of social media e.g. Twitter are not mass media. Are you telling me all the celebrities I named were given the same treatment as MJ?

 

[Fiskey]

Stop being deliberately obtuse. Individuals on a football forum and other forms of social media e.g. Twitter are not mass media. Are you telling me all the celebrities I named were given the same treatment as MJ?

I would say most people think Paedophilia is worse than rape, and MJ was a bigger star than Kobe, and there were more accusers over a longer period of time. All of this fed into the difference in coverage when comparing MJ to Kobe, I don't think there was any particular sense of the press being out to get MJ, it was and still is a legitimate massive story.

Regarding the other cases you sited, the accusations were from the 50s if I'm not mistaken? The world and media was a very different place, so I don't think you're comparing like with like.

 

[Sara125]

I would say most people think Paedophilia is worse than rape, and MJ was a bigger star than Kobe, and there were more accusers over a longer period of time. All of this fed into the difference in coverage when comparing MJ to Kobe, I don't think there was any particular sense of the press being out to get MJ, it was and still is a legitimate massive story.

Regarding the other cases you sited, the accusations were from the 50s if I'm not mistaken? The world and media was a very different place, so I don't think you're comparing like with like.

Okay well I still think he was easily and deliberately targeted by the media cos he was seen as an ‘eccentric weirdo’

 

[SirAF]

My parents believe OJ got off because of Rodney King incident and other injustices, as a gift to the black community to give us a victory.

One of the jurors that was interviewed in the OJ: Made in America documentary said flat out that OJ’s acquittal was payback for Rodney King.

 

[2cents]

That what? Sony tried to feck him over?

Proof for this claim:

The original 1993 accusations even started in the first place because Sony, the biggest record label at the time, didn’t want him to have the biggest piece of the pie once he signed that deal so they set him up.

 

[adexkola]

One of the jurors that was interviewed in the OJ: Made in America documentary said flat out that OJ’s acquittal was payback for Rodney King.

Rodney King was the tip of an iceberg which was a diseased LAPD