Lesean McCoy *Contains link to Graphic Imagery*

https://www.instagram.com/p/BlDh3nfgKyx ... qw5sc1p3ox

If true, this is horrible. Stuff like this seems to be more prevalent this year, or perhaps people simply aren't willing to allow it to be swept under the rug anymore.

Hearing a LOT of conflicting information on this. He is saying he hasn't had contact with the accuser in a month, so that is a HUGE difference to the story being told. One side is making up some huge lies here, and right now, it's just impossible to know which side is telling the truth. Of course both sides could be lying as well, but I'm assuming here that one side is much closer to accurate than the other, but I just don't know which.

There will be more information on this to be sure. One of them should be able to prove whether or not they are being truthful fairly soon.

Which is why I said "If true". I'm generally not one to immediately get the torch when information first comes out, but I did think it should still be discussed.

I do hope it ends up being untrue, and that he goes after the accuser for slander.

If it is true though, then lock him up and throw away the key.

OkieHawk":x7h8oesk said:

Which is why I said "If true". I'm generally not one to immediately get the torch when information first comes out, but I did think it should still be discussed.

I do hope it ends up being untrue, and that he goes after the accuser for slander.

If it is true though, then lock him up and throw away the key.

Click to expand...

Agreed....my post wasn't meant to insinuate that you were assuming guilt (or innocence), only that my opinion was that there is a lot left to be figured out in this case. It's definitely worth discussing even though all the facts are not in yet.

Is this the same merry-go-round we just got off with Foster?

If he is actually hitting his dog or kid, sure, I care.

But it sounds like the new goto that women are running to in order to get people so emotional they don't bother to vet the source.

TwistedHusky":2bkgebhq said:

Is this the same merry-go-round we just got off with Foster?

If he is actually hitting his dog or kid, sure, I care.

But it sounds like the new goto that women are running to in order to get people so emotional they don't bother to vet the source.

Click to expand...

You care if he is hitting his dog or kid, but not a woman?

well done, bud

Except that is not what I said.

At some point, either women have agency or they do not. People have used the excuse that women cannot be responsible for their decisions as an excuse to keep them from having rights, getting certain jobs, etc. I choose to believe they have agency, they are responsible for their decisions and if you have the same rights as everyone else (and they obviously should) then you have the same responsibilities in tandem.

We give the benefit of the doubt to the accused. With the exception of protecting children, where we decide it is worth it to investigate even accusations because children are helpless. In the case of a he said, she said - he gets the benefit of the doubt. But they should investigate the child abuse and animal abuse is an almost universal sign of a problematic personality as well.

But here is the thing, if she has agency and is in jeopardy - she can just leave. The child cannot. It isn't even her house. It is his. They are not even in a relationship, she is just someone that is choosing to stay in his place and refusing to remove herself which makes it difficult for him to use it. So why should I care about that investigation if the only reason she potentially is in jeopardy is because she is choosing to remain in a place she does not own, does not pay rent for, and can easily resolve the situation by leaving? This is not a domestic dispute, he does not live with her.

Also, child abuse accusations and now animal abuse accusations are used routinely by women to emotionally manipulate the system to get what they want or punish men they were in relationships with. So I am very skeptical, though it should still be investigated.

I don't care about the rest because she shouldn't be there in the first place. And the unhinged nature of her post makes me doubt the veracity of the rest regardless.

TwistedHusky":1hoztdko said:

But here is the thing, if she has agency and is in jeopardy - she can just leave.

Click to expand...

This isn't universally true though. It might be in this specific instance, but not always. We just don't have enough facts yet to say one way or the other for anything in this case.

TwistedHusky":2xkse9wp said:

Except that is not what I said.

At some point, either women have agency or they do not. People have used the excuse that women cannot be responsible for their decisions as an excuse to keep them from having rights, getting certain jobs, etc. I choose to believe they have agency, they are responsible for their decisions and if you have the same rights as everyone else (and they obviously should) then you have the same responsibilities in tandem.

We give the benefit of the doubt to the accused. With the exception of protecting children, where we decide it is worth it to investigate even accusations because children are helpless. In the case of a he said, she said - he gets the benefit of the doubt. But they should investigate the child abuse and animal abuse is an almost universal sign of a problematic personality as well.

But here is the thing, if she has agency and is in jeopardy - she can just leave. The child cannot. It isn't even her house. It is his. They are not even in a relationship, she is just someone that is choosing to stay in his place and refusing to remove herself which makes it difficult for him to use it. So why should I care about that investigation if the only reason she potentially is in jeopardy is because she is choosing to remain in a place she does not own, does not pay rent for, and can easily resolve the situation by leaving? This is not a domestic dispute, he does not live with her.

Also, child abuse accusations and now animal abuse accusations are used routinely by women to emotionally manipulate the system to get what they want or punish men they were in relationships with. So I am very skeptical, though it should still be investigated.

I don't care about the rest because she shouldn't be there in the first place. And the unhinged nature of her post makes me doubt the veracity of the rest regardless.

Click to expand...

It is what you said.

And now you've backed it with more assumptive nonsense.

Sometimes, not having an opinion on something while information plays out is far better than jumping to conclusions based on prior experiences you wish to assert as a foundation for this case.

As you're probably aware, there are thousands of abuse victims who are telling the truth. but of course, by your logic, they should just leave. because anyone, except pets and children, can just leave.

It amazes me how quick people on this board are to turn these situations back on the accuser. It's really disconcerting.

The burden of proof is on the accuser. That is how things work.

By the very accusation, she was in possession of tremendously valuable jewelry which could easily be converted into cash. In a situation where she needed to leave - assuming no other resources, the financial means was there.

There are thousands of abuse victims. I met hundreds when I worked in a shelter for them during college.

(I actually lost that job because I started having people hunt down the worst offenders because I was tired of seeing them victimize people. I was caught, they couldn't prove anything but we put our share of the worst ones in a position to be unable to abuse again.)

So let's not conflate 'I don't care about people that have recourse and willingly put themselves in abusive situations' with 'I don't care about abuse victims'. There are victims that would give anything to leave and cannot. Those are the ones that should get the lion's share of the concern and resources.

But nothing p*sses me off more than knowing there are people that are threatened and given little recourse to leave, having their resources drained away by people who use the system's resources because they willingly & repeatedly put themselves in those situations or because they use the system for their petty/vindictive machinations. And there are a good # of people that use accusations as a cudgel in order to punish people for perceived relationship transgressions.

Enough for me to feel skepticism is a reasonable first response to those with means. She certainly has a clear motive, he wants her out of his house. It isn't like I haven't seen this before. It isn't rare.

It’s not a conflation. It’s your need to muddle an already confused situation with speculation and assumption.

You’ve admittedly drawn a number of conclusions from previous stories and the particulars of this case that fit the narrative, While ignoring the countless other incidents in which the accuser is correct.

To what end? To remind us these things are complicated and ugly?

The_Z_Man":13ophxkm said:

Reading through the case at hand...

These two had a nasty breakup.

He wanted that jewelry back... it was eating at him that she had it. There are texts that where he lists specifically, the items that ended up getting jacked.

So if I had to throw a dart at the wall, I would say that he did not in fact, assault her.

He hired a goon to do it for him...

Click to expand...

From what I’ve read so far this seems very likely.

HAWKAMANIA":21oqzm1h said:

The_Z_Man":21oqzm1h said:

Reading through the case at hand...

These two had a nasty breakup.

He wanted that jewelry back... it was eating at him that she had it. There are texts that where he lists specifically, the items that ended up getting jacked.

So if I had to throw a dart at the wall, I would say that he did not in fact, assault her.

He hired a goon to do it for him...

Click to expand...

From what I’ve read so far this seems very likely.

Click to expand...

Or she is setting him up. I’m not saying it’s the case but with he evidence at hand it’s a definite possibility.

Way too many unknowns in this case right now for me to come to a conclusion either way

kidhawk":yf2ltahp said:

Or she is setting him up. I’m not saying it’s the case but with he evidence at hand it’s a definite possibility.

Way too many unknowns in this case right now for me to come to a conclusion either way

Click to expand...

So she got someone to pistol whip her to frame him? That's not a definite possibility by any means. That's a remote possibility at best.

Maybe, but the fact remains this is no longer an 'abuse' issue. It is an assault issue.

They are not in a relationship. There is no evidence that he is stalking her.

So why would the NFL need to adjudicate this?

Yes he was upset about the apparently tremendously expensive jewelry that he gifted her. (Which btw, when you give someone something as a gift - it is theirs. I have no idea what his thinking is here, he is clearly in the wrong but that is besides the point).

While it IS possible that he got upset and had someone go get the jewelry for him by staging the robbery - it is also possible that anyone else hearing about it existing and knowing the location + value could decide it was a good target.

Just because he was a jerk and it was likely he did it, does not mean he did. And the narrative that he have immediate consequences just because it 'sounds' like he did it is really not tremendously fair.

If he was vocal about this, and most people are vocal about things that upset them this much - then other parties had access to that information. And it is just as 'assumptive' to suddenly weave a bridge of events that involve him engaging other parties and instructing them to fake a robbery. It is possible and even likely, but you should need to be able to prove things not because of the legal reason but because it is also very possible another party did this.

'Likely' and 'sounds like' are thin bridges to convict people, even in the court of public opinion. The stories coming out paint a picture of someone that is likely a jerk (with how he treated the journalists in Philly as a for instance) but that does not mean he engineered an elaborate scheme to fake a robbery.

I am going to assume that because this was a crime, the police are already investigating. It was not only assault but assault with a weapon. And the lack of a break-in, either it being unlocked or someone unlocking, is weird. But that is something I assume the police investigate and determine - not the NFL.

(and all of this assumes the assault was not fabricated itself in an attempt to get him into to trouble....there is certainly motive for that as well.)

TwistedHusky":1n8d0g9o said:

So why would the NFL need to adjudicate this?

Click to expand...

I agree completely that the NFL shouldn't do anything with cases like this. Why does the NFLPA allow them to preemptively, in some instances, punish players until actual criminal charges come out? It boggles my mind that the players allow their union to do this.

TwistedHusky":1n8d0g9o said:

'Likely' and 'sounds like' are thin bridges to convict people, even in the court of public opinion. The stories coming out paint a picture of someone that is likely a jerk (with how he treated the journalists in Philly as a for instance) but that does not mean he engineered an elaborate scheme to fake a robbery.

Click to expand...

Well of course they are thin bridges, however, this has been human nature since the beginning of time. I'll go so far to say that everyone is guilty of this, myself included, at times. Does it make it okay? Of course not. This is why I try to not do this, but with some topics it's very difficult. Abuse of women, children and animals are some of those things.

OkieHawk":27rorkcr said:

kidhawk":27rorkcr said:

Or she is setting him up. I’m not saying it’s the case but with he evidence at hand it’s a definite possibility.

Way too many unknowns in this case right now for me to come to a conclusion either way

Click to expand...

So she got someone to pistol whip her to frame him? That's not a definite possibility by any means. That's a remote possibility at best.

Click to expand...

If you think that people wouldn't get themselves injured for monetary gain, then I'm not sure what I can say here. It happens way more often than people may want to believe.

I'm not saying that she did it or even that there's even a good chance she did it, but it is definitely a possibility. People do crazy things when it comes to break-ups. Especially when there's large sums of money involved.

I still wouldn't lean that direction, but if I were investigating the case, I'd definitely leave open the possibility that it could have happened that way and see where the facts go.

kidhawk":3u6mxegw said:

If you think that people wouldn't get themselves injured for monetary gain, then I'm not sure what I can say here. It happens way more often than people may want to believe.

Click to expand...

Unless you have actual statistics on how often people harm themselves for monetary gain like this, then it's merely anecdotal evidence that I'm going to ignore.

Also, I never said it couldn't have happened this way, merely that it was a remote possibility. If you missed that earlier then hopefully this makes it more clear.

And that is why if you are going to err, you err on the side focusing on the safety of the child - at least investigative purposes. Because you would rather be wrong and do the investigation than leave a child in a situation they are potentially abused.

But if you are going to err on a he-said/she-said situation where there is some type of crime - you err on the side of the accused. Because that is generally the fairest system we have without truth serum.

The only time I would feel it is reasonable to deviate from that approach is when there is a clear pattern of behavior where the accusations fit the pattern. We don't have this here.

So the authorities need to investigate the child abuse out of necessity, even though it could just as easily be an accusation out of spite for him trying to evict her. And I am assuming the police must be investigating what was clearly armed robbery.

But the NFL taking pre-emptive action before any of those findings? That is ridiculous. Especially considering the emotional nature of the issue (potential child abuse, a woman potentially being pistol whipped, etc).



Which is essentially what I said, investigate the child abuse, check into the animal abuse (since there must be a record of that...which somewhat would validate the other claims) but let the rest play itself out. The police will either find a connection or they won't. The NFL does not need to involve itself until it is clear there is one.

I find it hard to believe that an Instagram model would bust up her own face to frame McCoy. She's a model, they value their face. And if she did, why tha bad? A simple black eye would do the job. And why say a goon did it and not McCoy himself? That's not how people typically go about this.