Jump to content
The Smoakhouse Forums
CoachPelvisPresley

Random Art Briles thought...

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, DB2point0 said:

So you’re saying he knew something was going on but he didn’t want to know exactly what?  That’s turning a blind eye, still the same in my book

Yes but we’ve already seen you don’t care about the law when things are handled correctly. You still think something is fishy about the Oakman situation when a 12 person jury with infinite more information than you found him completely innocent. 

The point is, there have been diggings into this by people with all the facts (not just a few like you or me) and it doesn’t appear that Briles did anything that insist he intentionally covered anything up. It’s more like he agreed to take the fall to save his assistants careers and the university would maybe avoid further problems. 

I am not saying I know for sure what Briles did or didn’t know or do. But I do know that this entire Baylor situation from top to bottom wasn’t near as much as everyone thought/expected when these “allegations” first started appearing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Lhornfan said:

I think this is a good point. Rumors come out of OSU about Herman, and they went away just about as fast as they surfaced. Some of it may have to do with the idiot that was making the claims, but it could have also gotten squashed by Texas alum. Maybe a little of both.

Agreed. I’m not saying I think Herman did extremely wrong in that situation, but it certainly would have been looked into more and more accusations would have been flying like crazy if that had been the HC of Baylor or A&M or Tech. It’s just the way it is in this state. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and see when we say saved an assistant's career...let's be clear, as a father of a son...and a coaching son of a coaching dad...his son was that assistant whose career he was intent on saving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, CoachPelvisPresley said:

and see when we say saved an assistant's career...let's be clear, as a father of a son...and a coaching son of a coaching dad...his son was that assistant whose career he was intent on saving.

BINGO!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he probably would have signed that he was actually David Koresh too, if pressured by Wacko law enforcement enough...with the threat that Kendal Briles was going to be held in some way responsible going forward.

actually haven't solved the zodiac killer...Waco PD could close all at once

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WETSU said:

Yes but we’ve already seen you don’t care about the law when things are handled correctly. You still think something is fishy about the Oakman situation when a 12 person jury with infinite more information than you found him completely innocent. 

The point is, there have been diggings into this by people with all the facts (not just a few like you or me) and it doesn’t appear that Briles did anything that insist he intentionally covered anything up. It’s more like he agreed to take the fall to save his assistants careers and the university would maybe avoid further problems. 

I am not saying I know for sure what Briles did or didn’t know or do. But I do know that this entire Baylor situation from top to bottom wasn’t near as much as everyone thought/expected when these “allegations” first started appearing. 

Juries only decide beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence. Not Guilty is not the same as Innocent. OJ was also proven not guilty. Not the same as Innocent. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WETSU said:

Agreed. I’m not saying I think Herman did extremely wrong in that situation, but it certainly would have been looked into more and more accusations would have been flying like crazy if that had been the HC of Baylor or A&M or Tech. It’s just the way it is in this state. 

I agree with the exception of you including A&M. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, eagle34 said:

Juries only decide beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence. Not Guilty is not the same as Innocent. OJ was also proven not guilty. Not the same as Innocent. 

That’s not even a remotely close comparison... For starters, one was murder and one was basically a woman’s word vs a mans. One had tons of evidence one had no evidence. One the guy writes a book about if he did it, one the other guy doesn’t. 

With your way of thinking, you are assuming he was guilty and building a case against him instead of letting the evidence prove the truth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, WETSU said:

That’s not even a remotely close comparison... For starters, one was murder and one was basically a woman’s word vs a mans. One had tons of evidence one had no evidence. One the guy writes a book about if he did it, one the other guy doesn’t. 

With your way of thinking, you are assuming he was guilty and building a case against him instead of letting the evidence prove the truth. 

One was accused of Murder, one was accused of Rape. My point was being found Not guilty is not the same as being Innocent. In both cases the jury didn't see enough evidence to convict. Not the same as Innocent was my point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, eagle34 said:

One was accused of Murder, one was accused of Rape. My point was being found Not guilty is not the same as being Innocent. In both cases the jury didn't see enough evidence to convict. Not the same as Innocent was my point. 

That’s not how this is supposed to work... you aren’t supposed to be viewed as guilty until you’re proven innocence. There’s no way to truly prove innocence. There will ALWAYS be “doubt” if you’re doing that. You have to assume innocence and prove guilt or the entire justice system falls on its face. 

Thats why these rape cases are so sensitive. Everyone always assumes the man is guilty based off a women’s word until proven innocent, but you can’t really prove innocence. So even when a man wins the case it’s still viewed as he’s guilty. This is a major problem in our social and justice system. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, WETSU said:

That’s not how this is supposed to work... you aren’t supposed to be viewed as guilty until you’re proven innocence. There’s no way to truly prove innocence. There will ALWAYS be “doubt” if you’re doing that. You have to assume innocence and prove guilt or the entire justice system falls on its face. 

Thats why these rape cases are so sensitive. Everyone always assumes the man is guilty based off a women’s word until proven innocent, but you can’t really prove innocence. So even when a man wins the case it’s still viewed as he’s guilty. This is a major problem in our social and justice system. 

Yes, if we use this philosophy in life then we all are guilty until we can prove ourselves innocent in every aspect of our lives. Think how miserable that would be? With your spouse/loved one, parent, child, boss, police officer/legal system. Lot's of times, it feels like that's the way it is now, but it's not supposed to be this way. We're "convicted" by opinion/bias and internet/town gossip...and once that turns on you and you're on the front page with the negative news, where if you are ever exonerated, found innocent, or apologized to over an accusation that will be back page news or unreportable/reported (it's not exciting).    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×