Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

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


JSSkinz

Recommended Posts

10 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.

 

 

 

Yeah, but that's not what happened.

 

The videotaping was well known in advance by everyone--it's a "behind the scenes" type of release of a photo shoot (again, that pretty much every team releases) and was out in the open. It wasn't done secretly nor was it on any of the women's property. When they made the "Executive Meeting" video, it was made by cobbling together segments of that behind the scenes video that would normally be edited or cut out. Also, what they apparently did was zoom in on body parts that were in the original video. That doesn't meet the criteria for voyeurism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Califan007 said:

 

 

Yeah, but that's not what happened.

 

The videotaping was well known in advance by everyone--it's a "behind the scenes" type of release of a photo shoot (again, that pretty much every team releases) and was out in the open. It wasn't done secretly nor was it on any of the women's property. When they made the "Executive Meeting" video, it was made by cobbling together segments of that behind the scenes video that would normally be edited or cut out. Also, what they apparently did was zoom in on body parts that were in the original video. That doesn't meet the criteria for voyeurism.

 

 

yeah you guys are right, it's hard.  Va doesn't really outline the same way other states do like Alaska... which this would clearly fall under.

 

States

Summaries of Law

Penalties

Alaska

(29 SLA § 11.61.123)

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.

Class A misdemeanor if the subject is an adult and a class C felony if the subject is a minor.

Delaware

(11 De. Code Ann. § 1335)

A person is guilty of violation of privacy when he (1) trespasses on private property intending to subject anyone to eavesdropping or other surveillance or (2) installs in a private place, without consent, any device for observing, photographing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds or events in that place

Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one-year imprisonment and a $2,300 fine.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just read the article and sifted through the comments. Anyone else get a sharp-blow-to-the-head feeling?

 

My overall thoughts:

  • Snyder is a colossal piece of ****--that's not news. But the weight and depth of his depravity is blunt and apparent. He knew. He didn't give a ****. Now, he is directly implicated by employees across different time frames. This was ongoing. I don't beieve for a second it was just MIchael putting those videos together. It's clear this was an organizational mindset initiated by Snyder. It's the only way this sort of culture is allowed to persist over this long of a period of time. You don't see this anywhere else--even in the worst of the worst.
  • The team not responding to the Post about these videos reeks. Like they know nothing will come of them.
  • Snyder will probably survive. Unless he is "forced" to sell for the "good of the league" like Richardson. However, I do not see that happening. Dan will die as the owner of the WFT. That's the only way he leaves. And the owners won't force him to leave--because they all have skeletons in their closet they don't want out, even if they're not as bad as Snyder's.
  • Until proven otherwise, Wright, Donaldson, whoever else he brings in will meet the same fate as Lafemina. I don't see very much changing as long as Snyder is at the helm. It's all window dressing.
  • I am not one to overreact to stories like this--I usually wait for the rest of the story to come out. This is the rest of the story--and it's appalling. What the NFL does will be very telling. Again, I am not holding my breath. As someone pointed out earlier, Goodell is a puppet--and the other owners don't want their dirty laundry aired. If they vote Snyder out--they potentially open themselves up to the same fate.
  • It's heartbreaking to see how far this once-great franchise has fallen. It makes it very difficult to root for them knowing what kind of scumbag Snyder really is, in explicit detail. I dislike most of what Sally Jenkins writes--but she is dead on. This team is a shabby, shady storefront.
  • We'll see what happens, I just don't believe anything actually will.
Edited by Riggo#44
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

From what I remember, it was a combo of 1) part of their contract that they give permission for the team to hold their passports when traveling abroad for photo shoots, and 2) no safe place to carry your passport on you during bikini shoots, in which case you should keep it somewhere safe and keeping it with team officials was considered safe. Other larger companies apparently had similar clauses in employee contracts.

this still doesnt really make sense... just because its in employment contracts, doesnt make it right. and its not like the cheerleaders were just walking around daily in their bikinis.. from what i read, they had to give the team their passports as soon as they landed, and didnt get them back until leaving. they couldnt hold them when they weren't getting their pics taken? not saying there isnt a good reason for it out there somewhere, i just havent seen one yet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, @SkinsGoldPants said:

 

 

Bad look. Going from taking responsibility for the culture to saying he's hands off to blaming the media and sources. Really bad.

 

I would have stopped after the first paragraph.

 

I find it wild that he would claim the WP would not give him the videos for his experts to analyze while the WP claims they offered the videos to the Redskins but the team didn't want to view them. There's gonna be a lot of back and forth now...

 

Definitely would have stopped after the 1st paragraph.

 

 

Edited by Califan007
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

From what I remember, it was a combo of 1) part of their contract that they give permission for the team to hold their passports when traveling abroad for photo shoots, and 2) no safe place to carry your passport on you during bikini shoots, in which case you should keep it somewhere safe and keeping it with team officials was considered safe. Other larger companies apparently had similar clauses in employee contracts.

 

The passport thing actually isn't a huge deal and is done for the safety of the girls in most cases. Remember, some of these girls are 18, 19, 20 years old and the people on the trip certainly don't want to be dealing with a couple girls forgetting or misplacing their passports and not able to come back into the US. 

 

BUT, that's it - the "sponsors" milling around and watching topless photo shoots, etc. is just gross. The "extra footage" even being filmed and then distributed is equally disturbing. If you're getting video that's suitable for PG13 shoots, why are you taking explicit stuff? 

6 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

I would have stopped after the first paragraph.

 

I find it wild that he would claim the WP would not give him the videos for his experts to analyze while the WP claims they offered the videos to the Redskins but the team didn't want to view them. There's gonna be a lot of back and forth now...

 

Definitely would have stopped after the 1st paragraph.

 

 

 

Lashing out and attacking the victim...? He's a piece of trash. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mammajamma said:

this still doesnt really make sense... just because its in employment contracts, doesnt make it right. and its not like the cheerleaders were just walking around daily in their bikinis.. from what i read, they had to give the team their passports as soon as they landed, and didnt get them back until leaving. they couldnt hold them when they weren't getting their pics taken? not saying there isnt a good reason for it out there somewhere, i just havent seen one yet

 

Trying to get passports down the road would have been trickier. If you're gonna hold them, I don't think it matters much when you do it.

 

This was from reddit: "I remember my dad saying it started in the 70s when employees would commit a crime by stealing money, property.. etc and leaving out the country for good with no way of getting them back in to get them prosecuted by the court." "Some companies may just hang onto them to make it easier to do paperwork, visas, etc. or just for safekeeping."

 

I also seem to remember that, even though it was in their contract, the cheerleaders could have refused to give them up but none did. The NYT article, though, made it seem like they wanted to keep the cheerleaders captive while abroad in order to force them into unsavory things.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

Lol

 

 

Not defending him, but I actually do think he was more hands off with Bruce here.  Even one of the accusers from the previous story said she only saw him once in the office.  Bruce was basically acting as owner (attending league meetings instead of Snyder, etc.)

 

I'm not saying he doesn't deserve this heat.  He WAS the owner.  But I don't think he's been as hands-on recently as is his public reputation.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Califan007 said:

 

Trying to get passports down the road would have been trickier. If you're gonna hold them, I don't think it matters much when you do it.

 

This was from reddit: "I remember my dad saying it started in the 70s when employees would commit a crime by stealing money, property.. etc and leaving out the country for good with no way of getting them back in to get them prosecuted by the court." "Some companies may just hang onto them to make it easier to do paperwork, visas, etc. or just for safekeeping."

 

I also seem to remember that, even though it was in their contract, the cheerleaders could have refused to give them up but none did. The NYT article, though, made it seem like they wanted to keep the cheerleaders captive while abroad in order to force them into unsavory things.

 

 

 

Yeah, I think focusing on holding the passports is the wrong thing. It's not like they wouldn't let them leave or forced them into anything on those trips. It's the things they did without their knowledge that we should be pissed about. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

Yeah, I think focusing on holding the passports is the wrong thing. It's not like they wouldn't let them leave or forced them into anything on those trips. It's the things they did without their knowledge that we should be pissed about. 

 

Exactly, exactly...(I think that's twice I've responded this way to one of your posts lol)

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

 

 

Thus begins the season of the spin.

 

Expect Snyder’s new twitter account to also attack the accusers and the “fake news” press while pumping up all the wonderful inclusive things that good old benevolent man of the people Daniel Snyder continues to do.

 

I aint buying what he’s selling. 

 

As a loyal fan I demand an independent investigation by the NFL.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also agree that Snyder was actually more absent and hands-off while Bruce was here, generally. The problem was that he would make himself or his will known during high-leverage moments (usually in regards to QB decisions and deals) and ruin things. So it didn’t matter that he wasn’t around much the rest of the time—setting aside the fact that the guy he trusted to be his stand-in was also a POS, of course.

Edited by ConnSKINS26
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Jumbo locked this topic
  • Jumbo unlocked this topic

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
×
×
  • Create New...