Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

A New Start! (the Reboot) The Front Office, Ownership, & Coaching Staff Thread

JSSkinz

By JSSkinz
in The Stadium

 Share
TK
Message added by TK,

Pay Attention Knuckleheads

 

 

Has your team support wained due to ownership or can you see past it?  

229 members have voted

  1. 1. Will you attend a game and support the team while Dan Snyder is the owner of the team, regardless of success?

    • Yes
      47
    • No
      106
    • I would start attending games if Dan was no longer the owner of the team.
      77

Recommended Posts

CommanderInTheRye

CommanderInTheRye

Posted
Posted (edited)

Goodell has a responsibility to the fans and the league to independently investigate this matter.

 

The only goal should be to ferret out the truth and hold those responsible accountable— no matter who they are.

 

It is no longer tenable to allow the team to do its own inquiry. With the latest article that ship has sailed for good. I do not trust them to produce anything other than a rubber stamped hermetically sanitized document showing that, while terrible things happened, Snyder was neither aware of those things, nor at fault for their occurence.

 

That simply won’t do.

 

As a prerequisite to this investigation the NFL must demand access to any and all former or current team employees regardless of whether or not a non-disclosure agreement is in effect. If the Washington Football Team refuses to allow indemnification for those with NDAs that alone should be considered evidence of guilt.

 

This is serious.

 

This can not be ignored or swept under the rug.

 

This is the time for action.

 

 

Edited by TrancesWithWolves
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
profusion

profusion

Posted
Posted (edited)

I imagine the NFL would want its own investigation now, but I think they can't afford to let this drag out, now that this has reached beyond typical sexual harassment and into areas the NFL really doesn't want to be anywhere near... particularly if there's more to come.

 

I'm pretty sure the league has already been quietly digging into this since the Post's previous story came out. You don't run a multi-billion dollar public-facing business without a robust security and intelligence gathering operation.

Edited by profusion
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skinsinparadise

Skinsinparadise

Posted
Posted

Dan isn’t in court. It doesn’t have to be a legal crime for him to be voted out for being a serious detriment to the image of the NFL. 
 

I get the point that combating racism might have more legs to it as for burnishing the image of the NFL but I don’t see gross levels of sexism falling miles behind that. I am predicting the NFL will take this round of allegations more seriously and I think them previously ignoring the Cheerleader scandal years back increases the odds they take this one more seriously. Will see.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Califan007 The Constipated

Califan007 The Constipated

Posted
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

I'd ask then...what does it take?

 

I would say it takes something directly tied to Snyder. While it's obviously an owner's responsibility and something as toxic as what's being described would most definitely fall on his shoulders, that might mean adhering to league-enforced practices and changes in how things are run more so than selling the team. With Richardson, he not only had sexual harassment (and maybe sexual assault) been directly tied to him, he also paid out shush money to keep the victims quiet, and then threw on using a racial slur towards a black employee just for ****s and giggles. The league will be screwed if they force Snyder out and then employees on other teams start coming forward with the same types of charges about the workplace. Might end up with like 4-5 other owners on the hot seat. I'd be thinking that league oversight might be in the future for a year or two.

 

However, if the video can be directly tied to Snyder and the "hotel room/get to know each other" story bears substantial credibility, that might do it.

Edited by Califan007
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OVCChairman

OVCChairman

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

But he doesn't have any legit crimes under his belt.

 

Dude, I get it.  You hate Snyder, I do, too.  But that's the only thing he can be accused of right now, being a ****ty owner.  And a ****ty human.  

 

I'm sorry, but ordering that someone compiles nip slips on a dvd isn't a crime.  And asking a cheerleader to go to someone's hotel room isn't a crime.  Those are lots of things, gross, pervy, lecherous, distasteful...but not crimes.   

 

 

ACTUALLY.... voyeurism is a crime.  It is defined in different ways in different states, and this is how it's defined in VA

 

Voyeurism

  1. Introduction

    A victim could press charges for voyeurism if another person enters their property and secretly or furtively peeps, spies, or attempts to peep or spy into or through a window, door or other aperture under circumstances that would violate the victim’s reasonable expectation of privacy. A victim could also press charges for voyeurism when another uses a peephole or other aperture to secretly or furtively peep, spy, or attempt to peep or spy into one of several enumerated public places for the purpose of viewing any nonconsenting person who is nude or undressing.

 

 

 

Text of Statute(s)

Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-130 – Peeping or spying into dwelling or enclosure.

A. It shall be unlawful for any person to enter upon the property of another and secretly or furtively peep, spy or attempt to peep or spy into or through a window, door or other aperture of any building, structure, or other enclosure of any nature occupied or intended for occupancy as a dwelling, whether or not such building, structure or enclosure is permanently situated or transportable and whether or not such occupancy is permanent or temporary, or to do the same, without just cause, upon property owned by him and leased or rented to another under circumstances that would violate the occupant's reasonable expectation of privacy.

B. It shall be unlawful for any person to use a peephole or other aperture to secretly or furtively peep, spy or attempt to peep or spy into a restroom, dressing room, locker room, hotel room, motel room, tanning bed, tanning booth, bedroom or other location or enclosure for the purpose of viewing any nonconsenting person who is totally nude, clad in undergarments, or in a state of undress exposing the genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast and the circumstances are such that the person would otherwise have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

C. The provisions of this section shall not apply to a lawful criminal investigation or a correctional official or local or regional jail official conducting surveillance for security purposes or during an investigation of alleged misconduct involving a person committed to the Department of Corrections or to a local or regional jail.

D. As used in this section, “peephole” means any hole, crack or other similar opening through which a person can see.

E. A violation of this section is a Class 1 misdemeanor.

 

 

To go further.. this is the definition in Alaska... 

 

A person is guilty of indecent viewing if he knowingly views or produces a picture of the genitals, anus, or female breasts of another person without consent.

Edited by OVCChairman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spaceman Spiff

Spaceman Spiff

Posted
Posted
Just now, Dissident2 said:

 

You don't get it. It doesn't have to be a "crime." It has to be enough for the NFL owners to think that the guy is a detriment to the league to such a degree that they feel he is hurting their business. We're not talking about sending Snyder to jail here. Just getting him out of the league. There should be plenty there to do that right now. Whether they will or not, we'll see. 

 

I know it doesn't have to be a crime, but it would be better if it was.  And I said it before, I'll say it again here.  Lecherous and gross behavior towards women isn't enough, as sad as it is.  The owners won't go after Snyder for this because it will set a precedent...and that precedent will be for every woman who's received a gross text message, a smarmy comment, or for any cheerleader who's had a front office employee act unprofessional towards them, that will all of a sudden be enough for an owner to be forced out.  All of those owners know that if they hold Snyder's feet to the fire for this, they're opening themselves up for the same scrutiny as well and I don't believe for a second that any of them want to do that.  I'm not naive enough to think that the WFT is the only place where things like this occurs.  It might be the WORST place where it occurs, but it's not the only place in the league where things like this have happened.  

 

A racist comment from Snyder will be the only thing that gets him gone.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LadySkinsFan

LadySkinsFan

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, Bacon said:

 

Cheerleaders were regularly being transported for sex-related activities with their employment being threatened. They were not being paid extra for this, so it doesn't even qualify as prostitution. The hell else are we supposed to call this? 

 

Sex slavery? 

 

I read the article in its entirety, very well researched at least two independent sources of points in the article, and it details the horrible working conditions at the football team facilities, both domestic and abroad. 

 

I want Snyder out. The buck stops at the top, and he's the top. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Califan007 The Constipated

Califan007 The Constipated

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Bacon said:

 

I'm not "diminishing sex trafficking" by calling upon the literal definition of the term and applying it to a situation wherein extremely uncomfortable sex-related activity described as "pimping out" took place in another country, after being ordered to go there by their employer.

 

 

Just because the conditions were cleaner doesn't change how messed up it was. 

 

And there's a lot of deflection in your post. Who cares if it's "normal" for this to happen, for passports to be pulled? Why does that excuse behavior that demeans and potentially endangers women? I'm thinking more broadly about a potential culture change by calling out this behavior, not simply going by what was acceptable a decade ago. This can't continue. 

 

YOU called it sex trafficking, when clearly it wasn't. I rebutted your points as to why they are not evidence of sex trafficking and that some are not out of the ordinary.

 

And yes, you definitely diminish the realities and seriousness of sex trafficking by describing what Snyder is said to have done in with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dissident2

Dissident2

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

I know it doesn't have to be a crime, but it would be better if it was.  And I said it before, I'll say it again here.  Lecherous and gross behavior towards women isn't enough, as sad as it is. 

 

I would agree if it wasn't for the video. I think the video is at a different level. If they can prove Snyder ordered that, that to me is incredibly damaging. That's messing with the NFL itself, not just someone in the building. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spaceman Spiff

Spaceman Spiff

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

ACTUALLY.... voyeurism is a crime.  It is defined in different ways in different states, and this is how it's defined in VA

 

Voyeurism

  1. Introduction

    A victim could press charges for voyeurism if another person enters their property and secretly or furtively peeps, spies, or attempts to peep or spy into or through a window, door or other aperture under circumstances that would violate the victim’s reasonable expectation of privacy. A victim could also press charges for voyeurism when another uses a peephole or other aperture to secretly or furtively peep, spy, or attempt to peep or spy into one of several enumerated public places for the purpose of viewing any nonconsenting person who is nude or undressing.

 

 

 

Text of Statute(s)

Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-130 – Peeping or spying into dwelling or enclosure.

A. It shall be unlawful for any person to enter upon the property of another and secretly or furtively peep, spy or attempt to peep or spy into or through a window, door or other aperture of any building, structure, or other enclosure of any nature occupied or intended for occupancy as a dwelling, whether or not such building, structure or enclosure is permanently situated or transportable and whether or not such occupancy is permanent or temporary, or to do the same, without just cause, upon property owned by him and leased or rented to another under circumstances that would violate the occupant's reasonable expectation of privacy.

B. It shall be unlawful for any person to use a peephole or other aperture to secretly or furtively peep, spy or attempt to peep or spy into a restroom, dressing room, locker room, hotel room, motel room, tanning bed, tanning booth, bedroom or other location or enclosure for the purpose of viewing any nonconsenting person who is totally nude, clad in undergarments, or in a state of undress exposing the genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast and the circumstances are such that the person would otherwise have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

C. The provisions of this section shall not apply to a lawful criminal investigation or a correctional official or local or regional jail official conducting surveillance for security purposes or during an investigation of alleged misconduct involving a person committed to the Department of Corrections or to a local or regional jail.

D. As used in this section, “peephole” means any hole, crack or other similar opening through which a person can see.

E. A violation of this section is a Class 1 misdemeanor.

 

Ok counselor, but the cheerleaders were consenting.  They were participating in a risque photoshoot for a calendar.  The cheerleaders knew they were being photographed and videod, that's not really up for debate.  Was there anything that they signed from the team saying that the team would terminate any material that inadvertently exposed the genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast?  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spaceman Spiff

Spaceman Spiff

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Dissident2 said:

 

I would agree if it wasn't for the video. I think the video is at a different level. If they can prove Snyder ordered that, that to me is incredibly damaging. That's messing with the NFL itself, not just someone in the building. 

 

I think the video is bad, too, but from what the article states, I don't think they can prove that Snyder ordered it.  Unless it's in writing somewhere, which I don't know if he'd be stupid enough to do.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
spjunkies

spjunkies

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, bakedtater1 said:

Can someone please catch me up  In a sentence or two I'm trying to catch up but drive and deliver milk all the same time lol

 

Continuation of Snyder's **** up that was reported on, most people see how screwed up it is while a very small group have taken it upon themselves to be his Extremeskins lawyer. 

Edited by spjunkies
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OVCChairman

OVCChairman

Posted
Posted
Just now, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

Ok counselor, but the cheerleaders were consenting.  They were participating in a risque photoshoot for a calendar.  The cheerleaders knew they were being photographed and videod, that's not really up for debate.  Was there anything that they signed from the team saying that the team would terminate any material that inadvertently exposed the genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast?  

 

 

 

 

I wasn't tryin to come off like a counselor i'm sorry, just trying to have a conversation. 

 

They would presumably be a non-consenting person if they were not aware of video regarding exposed areas of their bodies that are not intended.  They likely were consenting to photography that was outlined prior to the shoot and what would be expected.  Accidental nudity likely was not a part of that.  

 

I don't know.  I have to imagine that there is legal precedent to prevent someone from holding onto video of someone that exposed parts of their body that was not intended, even if it happens in the act of another 'photoshoot.'  How they link it to Snyder is hard to say, but if people come forward saying he was the one that ordered these, then there has to be some sort of intent to find out the validity of it.  The crime may have happened that you referenced. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spaceman Spiff

Spaceman Spiff

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

I wasn't tryin to come off like a counselor i'm sorry, just trying to have a conversation. 

 

They would presumably be a non-consenting person if they were not aware of video regarding exposed areas of their bodies that are not intended.  They likely were consenting to photography that was outlined prior to the shoot and what would be expected.  Accidental nudity likely was not a part of that.  

 

I don't know.  I have to imagine that there is legal precedent to prevent someone from holding onto video of someone that exposed parts of their body that was not intended, even if it happens in the act of another 'photoshoot.'  How they link it to Snyder is hard to say, but if people come forward saying he was the one that ordered these, then there has to be some sort of intent to find out the validity of it.  The crime may have happened that you referenced. 

 

I agree that accidental nudity wasn't a part of what they most likely agreed to.  

 

I also agree that the link to Snyder is hard to prove, too.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...