I'm gonna reword my previous post.

Two top news organizations have taken opposing views on this issue, with one including coverage of the 2003-2005 event and one that suspended its reporter for referring to it.

It has nothing to do with liking or respecting the person. He is gone. This was a major life event in that person's life, largely corroborated, the subject of which women (the majority of SA victims) feel intimidated to discuss.

Kobe got a lot of flak in the media in his earlier days for doing less than desirable stuff, that is not a secret to anyone. I had the opportunity to meet and hang out with him a few times, the first back when I was 17 and he was a rookie and the others we were both in our early 20's.

When there were no cameras, reporters, or media around he was just a normal guy. The first time we talked with him we were all teenagers and talked about teenager stuff, music, shoes and surprisingly football. I only asked him for an autograph once the first time I met him, and the other times I enjoyed just the general BS'ing much more.

it's truly sad for all those lives that were lost and the families that now have a major void that will never be filled.

This is what I got signed back when i was a 17 year old kid who thought I knew everything. Looking back on this, I can't believe this all took place about 24 years ago.

Questions have arisen among MSM about how Kobe's SA should be incorporated into memorial coverage.

This is more already a question of how then it is if or when: Yesterday, a Washington Post reporter was suspended for tweeting a 2016 story about the case. She was now just reinstated, but not before almost the whole newsroom signed a letter demanding reinstatement, and not before hundreds of stories and editorials from LAT to NYT to the Guardian were published.

So to those saying "have respect": If you mean have respect for the timing, hundreds of news outlets are covering this now. News obituaries are differentiated from the funeral one homes most people get, because they are treated as news. To remove a major event from his life story tells SA victims that their stories don't matter even if that person has died. Because there will always be someone else's family, someone else's sensibilities to not offend. Because it never will be the "respectful" time.

I want to encourage debate on where we go from here now. The news was out there; it's already been brought up. How do we view Kobe's 2003 actions from a 2020 post-Weinstein standpoint?

Reference material:

This article has many of the public court documents: https://heavy.com/sports/2020/01/kobe-bryant-rape-case/

Article discussing media approaches to this issue: https://slate.com/culture/2020/01/kobe- ... ation.html

I don't think anyone is denying its place in the narrative. I do think, given that this was so long ago, there was no need by some to rush to remind us all of it within hours of his death.

I think Kobes legacy, like many, is complicated and flawed. However, unlike many, there was an effort by him to be somethi g positive in the lives of people after.

Redemption to a degree, or atleast a sense of growth. I don't know much about him after the NBA. It is possible to discuss his legacy without tying an anchor to it, or washing away his mistakes.

Within six hours, the LA Times was discussing it. Within hours, more followed. This has happened with celebrities since before Princess Diana. When you live life as a newsworthy public figure, your death will be treated as such.

As far as complicated and flawed--flawed, yes, but not complicated. He was arrested for forcible r@p*; he told officers at the initial interview he wished to "pay her off" after she was with parents and cops saying what happened and then went for a r@p* kit. He continued to excel at his NBA and post-NBA endeavors, and became a friend to girls' basketball.

There's not anything complicated about it. What is, is how we treated this, are treating this, and how we reconcile the notion of redemption.

Michael Vick, for example, is a redeemed man. He went to prison, went bankrupt, resurrected his NFL career, and noted much of it to the Humane Society. Yet still, when Michael Vick passes on, his news obituary will necessarily include the dog abuse charges.

Kobe really didn't do that. We tell SA victims it's not OK. Speak out. When she did, Kobe's lawyers dragged out trial proceedings, but she was doggedly determined to continue until her name and salacious details were revealed, at which point she collapsed and pursued the civil settlement that he told cops he wanted from the beginning. Those are the facts, and they're not complicated.

The man is now dead, and maybe this victim wants to speak out or maybe others do. Disallowing this, censoring this, only reinforces that there's someone to protect. The poor man. His family. His baby. There's never a "respectful" time to speak out, not in life nor death.

Let all the good be known. But don't shy from the bad, either.

Complicated.. it was 17 years ago. Many things have happened and people have moved in, grown. You are treating it like it was days ago and looking at it in thst lens. There has been a process.

You're asking to dig things up but I've yet to understand why. Not many are ignoring or blocking the conversation, nor the victims ability to speak if she wishes.

Again, you're arguing for a conversation that very few are arguing against.

Uncle Si wrote:Complicated.. it was 17 years ago. Many things have happened and people have moved in, grown. You are treating it like it was days ago and looking at it in thst lens. There has been a process.

You're asking to dig things up but I've yet to understand why. Not many are ignoring or blocking the conversation, nor the victims ability to speak if she wishes.

Again, you're arguing for a conversation that very few are arguing against.

Well, yesterday a reporter for the Washington Post got suspended for just Tweeting an article--and not just that, she received death threats. Hundreds of them. Another Twitter blue chip, an actress, got the same treatment when she said the guy was beloved, and a rapist, and could be both.

So clearly there are people invested in not talking about it.

And, from a victim's standpoint, the "process" of moving on ultimately rests on the inevitability that for them, it's always days. In that way, it cannot be moved away from. It's a tape that gets replayed daily. The process here involves decades of trying to block it out, maladaptive behaviors, trying to fix these behaviors, therapy and hopefully reaching some way to deal with the fact that for every day of your life, it'll be there. It takes decades, but still, the tape never goes away. And recognition of this is why the legal system and general public opinion has shifted since 2003.

Clearly, many Kobe fans were offended with the timing or even continued discussion of this. But there are tens of millions of people who relate to the experience of never getting justice. The discussion needs to happen.

Yes, you keep bringing up the one person who was suspended for it (while also linking several existing articles on the discussion). And I imagine her suspension was due to the timing of the discussion, not the discussion itself. Agree or not, that's somewhat valid. Using twitter conversations as a merit for any discussion is just wasting time, in my opinion. Nothing there should be taken seriously.

Many (certainly not all) Kobe fans are in shock and processing grief. You asking them to also consider the man's crime from 17 years ago while they are still memorializing him is rather callous. Do I personally think the conversation needs to be muted for a few days? Maybe. But you can certainly see how people genuinely impacted by his death maybe just want to celebrate him for a bit before defining his legacy in the long run.

I also think it's dangerous for you to continue to discuss the victim. You are not aware of her feelings on this matter. And while you may be able to relate it to others, until she comes out, this is where we all are.

There will be a time for the discussion. I am sure it will be soon. I am sure it can be now in many circles. But affording people a moment to process this before reminding them of his crime seems fine to me.

You're basically trying to make a martyr of the victim and using Kobe's death to forward a discussion on $ex assault. And that's more than just disingenuous, that's kind of disgusting.

The conversation is taking place, and will continue to. Forcing it into every conversation about Kobe is wrong.

I'm starting to see just as many stories about the r@p* as I am about his recent passing. Obviously a lot to do with getting clicks as people love sensationalism. Many will point to he was never convicted but the evidence was there although he would of had a good chance of being found not guilty with his team of lawyers destroying the victim on the stand. Likely she knew this and knew her life would be a media circus. Sexual assault is not an easy case to win even if there is mounds of physical evidence. I did find it funny he threw Shaq under the bus during his interview..link below. No doubt Kobe was a d*ck in those days. He seemed to change later in life. Who knows really though? We only see these people for who they are on tv or how the media portrays them...unless you live with them how can anyone say? Fans are mourning him and he was a larger than life figure and sports legend that saw an early end to his life which is hard to fathom by some. No one should be criticized for how they want to mourn or remember their sports heroes. I'm guessing if RW was on that helicopter the mood around here would be the same as Laker fans are currently going through. It's kind of funny there was never much on this story throughout his career and now that he is dead people and media outlets are bringing it up like it happened yesterday....forgetting the fact that a victim has to be exposed to this again.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/kobe-brya ... ref=scroll

Uncle Si wrote:I don't think anyone is denying its place in the narrative. I do think, given that this was so long ago, there was no need by some to rush to remind us all of it within hours of his death.

I think Kobes legacy, like many, is complicated and flawed. However, unlike many, there was an effort by him to be somethi g positive in the lives of people after.

Redemption to a degree, or atleast a sense of growth. I don't know much about him after the NBA. It is possible to discuss his legacy without tying an anchor to it, or washing away his mistakes.

Bingo.

When people die, it's OK to focus on the good, and not the bad. Isn't that what we all want when it's our time?

We're all human, and for people like Kobe Bryant, their entire lives are under a judgmental microscope 24/7, and at ages where they're NOWHERE close to being a mature adult.

I didn't know Kobe personally, but it sure seems like he had a authentic reconciliation with his wife, was raising strong independent daughters, and loved the hell out of his post-retirement life where he was wholely involved in charitable work and his family.

THAT should be celebrated, again as we would all want. To focus on his fault's is doing a disservice to who he was as a human being. Mortal, just like the rest of us.

Sgt. Largent wrote:

Uncle Si wrote:I don't think anyone is denying its place in the narrative. I do think, given that this was so long ago, there was no need by some to rush to remind us all of it within hours of his death.

I think Kobes legacy, like many, is complicated and flawed. However, unlike many, there was an effort by him to be somethi g positive in the lives of people after.

Redemption to a degree, or atleast a sense of growth. I don't know much about him after the NBA. It is possible to discuss his legacy without tying an anchor to it, or washing away his mistakes.

Bingo.

When people die, it's OK to focus on the good, and not the bad. Isn't that what we all want when it's our time?

We're all human, and for people like Kobe Bryant, their entire lives are under a judgmental microscope 24/7, and at ages where they're NOWHERE close to being a mature adult.

I didn't know Kobe personally, but it sure seems like he had a authentic reconciliation with his wife, was raising strong independent daughters, and loved the hell out of his post-retirement life where he was wholely involved in charitable work and his family.

THAT should be celebrated, again as we would all want. To focus on his fault's is doing a disservice to who he was as a human being. Mortal, just like the rest of us.

I do see SCHs point (I think). Sexual assault cannot be swept under the rug.

But I also don't see that being the narrative here. People want to make sure it's not forgotten. The issue may be more how to fit it .

Uncle Si wrote:

Sgt. Largent wrote:

Uncle Si wrote:I don't think anyone is denying its place in the narrative. I do think, given that this was so long ago, there was no need by some to rush to remind us all of it within hours of his death.

I think Kobes legacy, like many, is complicated and flawed. However, unlike many, there was an effort by him to be somethi g positive in the lives of people after.

Redemption to a degree, or atleast a sense of growth. I don't know much about him after the NBA. It is possible to discuss his legacy without tying an anchor to it, or washing away his mistakes.

Bingo.

When people die, it's OK to focus on the good, and not the bad. Isn't that what we all want when it's our time?

We're all human, and for people like Kobe Bryant, their entire lives are under a judgmental microscope 24/7, and at ages where they're NOWHERE close to being a mature adult.

I didn't know Kobe personally, but it sure seems like he had a authentic reconciliation with his wife, was raising strong independent daughters, and loved the hell out of his post-retirement life where he was wholely involved in charitable work and his family.

THAT should be celebrated, again as we would all want. To focus on his fault's is doing a disservice to who he was as a human being. Mortal, just like the rest of us.

I do see SCHs point (I think). Sexual assault cannot be swept under the rug.

But I also don't see that being the narrative here. People want to make sure it's not forgotten. The issue may be more how to fit it .

We can treat it how Kobe treated it later in his life, as something he regrets, learned from and tried to grow as a human being from.

Again, just like we all have regrets in our life to varying degrees of seriousness.

People died tragically, I just don't get it when people focus on the negative, it feels dirty and salacious to me. Like "hey, Kobe died, this is a good time to bring up the r@p* cause it serves my purpose of getting clicks and attention."

I'm just fine with celebrating the good. Because that's the healthiest way for people to grieve and feel better about such a horrible event and loss.

Sgt. Largent wrote:We can treat it how Kobe treated it later in his life, as something he regrets, learned from and tried to grow as a human being from.

Again, just like we all have regrets in our life to varying degrees of seriousness.

We don't know that Kobe had a deep-seated regret. We know that in 2005, he issued a statement basically saying that he was real sorry about the "adultery" and he thought it was consensual but maybe she had a point, he paid her off and he was real sorry to the people of Colorado for inconveniencing them.

And then he didn't address it since.

There is no evidence he was sorry other than how it affected he himself and his family, unlike say Michael Vick who spent a decade donating to dog shelters and telling people he was sorry. Him coaching his daughter's team and donating to her youth sport of choice or building a basketball camp that she could personally play in just shows he was interested in his own kid.

What rankles me is this notion that if HE moved on, than so should WE, and he was indulged in this through the last day of his life. There was never a good time to bring this up.

Kobe by his retirement knew that the writing was on the wall with me too. He could look over at the NFL and see teams releasing numerous players facing DV/SA charges when they got the publicly available records. He damn well knew that he wouldn't have gotten away with having his lawyers drag this on going into two years and releasing her name into the public. He knew that at some point this was going to be brought up.

So again, what is your end game here, as you are just saying that you (specifically you) are still upset by this.

And honestly, if you think the only thing Kobe did was support his daughter, than you are misguided (and very, very wrong).

Lastly, you say "we", but who are you referring to? the victim? Are you lumping yourself in with her? or do you just want to have a conversation on $ex assault and use a dead man (because he can longer impact the conversation) and his history as the basis for it?

You are absolutely right that it needs to be a part of his legacy. I'm not sure what else you are asking for though, as that's already happening.

are you just ensuring the posters of .net factor it into our perceptions? If so, I do.

Uncle Si wrote:Yes, you keep bringing up the one person who was suspended for it (while also linking several existing articles on the discussion). And I imagine her suspension was due to the timing of the discussion, not the discussion itself. Agree or not, that's somewhat valid. Using twitter conversations as a merit for any discussion is just wasting time, in my opinion. Nothing there should be taken seriously.

Many (certainly not all) Kobe fans are in shock and processing grief. You asking them to also consider the man's crime from 17 years ago while they are still memorializing him is rather callous. Do I personally think the conversation needs to be muted for a few days? Maybe. But you can certainly see how people genuinely impacted by his death maybe just want to celebrate him for a bit before defining his legacy in the long run.

I also think it's dangerous for you to continue to discuss the victim. You are not aware of her feelings on this matter. And while you may be able to relate it to others, until she comes out, this is where we all are.

There will be a time for the discussion. I am sure it will be soon. I am sure it can be now in many circles. But affording people a moment to process this before reminding them of his crime seems fine to me.

You're basically trying to make a martyr of the victim and using Kobe's death to forward a discussion on $ex assault. And that's more than just disingenuous, that's kind of disgusting.

The conversation is taking place, and will continue to. Forcing it into every conversation about Kobe is wrong.

OK, Si, so when exactly would be appropriate? It wasn't appropriate in 2005 because he was trying to repair relations with his wife who just had his baby. She went on to have more and discussions were muted because what about his children? Next week perhaps? Or 2037 when his youngest hits her 18th birthday?

There's never a good time.

The name of his victim appears still in searches, because during all the motions with Kobe's lawyers, it somehow got released. She OD'd (but survived) in 2013. It'd be fair to say there's some residual trauma there that Kobe and his family never felt. You're right in that we don't know how she feels in 2020, but from speaking to many r@p* victims, I'd guess it trends toward relief.

Your question had me thinking, too, about how I might feel if it were say, RW. If I read reports about neck contusions and vaginal lacerations on a teenager, and said teenager going to her parents and cops immediately afterward, I wouldn't be pu$$y about it either. I'd be demanding a swift and credible explanation and a plan of penance that included public donations and making it public every day that what he did wasn't OK, like what happened with Vick. Not him evading questions for going on two decades (and people being afraid to ask) because what about Ciara and the kids.

What do you mean, when?

The conversation is already taking place. You seem hell bent, however, on pressing it into something more, almost like you want to have another trial.

You're going on and on about the crime and its impact. I've yet to understand to what end, outside of "hey, did you know this and this and this, too?"

This was settled years ago, maybe not to SC's satisfaction but hey it is over. You say Victim but Kobe was not sentenced to Jail, how many celebrities and players have we seen get called out in money grabs and for headlines, if he did it, it was wrong and I don't support any of that treatment of females.

But we also know that females have been very good at making themselves look the victim over the years.

The man is dead, his family is paying a price already, now you have people like SC saying dig up this old stuff and roast his dead body with it and make his family watch while they try to find some sort of healing and dealing with what they are going through.

OH AND HIS DAUGHTER DIED AS WELL, I rarely see much of that in any of this talk.

I think the rule of thumb is to be respectful when someone passes. Everyone has flaws, no need to point them out when someone dies. The guy just died tragically with his daughter and leaves behind a wife and kids, it’s extremely wrong to criticize him. You are allowed to have an opinion but there is a time and place to say it. I’m sure a lot of people on here have known someone who has passed away, how would you feel if someone brought up something bad they did a long time ago.

Kobe wasn’t perfect, but he is a great example of a guy who turned his life around. I have no idea what happened that night in Colorado, but I do know how great of a person he has been, and how many people he has positively impacted. Anytime someone like this dies, I don’t feel so bad for them, but the people around him who are sad.

News obit coverage routinely includes the bad with the good. It's not disrespecting that person, it is respecting that the public, and hence journalists, are treating them as a figure of public interest.

So with my memory refreshed by that, my quandary is how we reconcile it.

Michael Jackson was a generational musician. You could argue, too, that Bill Clinton was a generational president. Neither Jackson or Clinton were convicted, but society generally embraces that grievous wrongs were still committed.

That's where I think it has to go to with Kobe.

SantaClaraHawk wrote:News obit coverage routinely includes the bad with the good. It's not disrespecting that person, it is respecting that the public, and hence journalists, are treating them as a figure of public interest.

So with my memory refreshed by that, my quandary is how we reconcile it.

Michael Jackson was a generational musician. You could argue, too, that Bill Clinton was a generational president. Neither Jackson or Clinton were convicted, but society generally embraces that grievous wrongs were still committed.

That's where I think it has to go to with Kobe.

Who is suggesting it hasn't, or won't?

It took 2 days for the shock of the incident to die down before their were articles all over about how society, and more specifically sports fans, address and will address his past.

And the ABC guy was suspended for the incorrect story and information.

I don't want to say that the woman was lying, but she did refuse to testify against him. After reading more about the incident, it's a "he-said - she-said" event in my mind.

chris98251 wrote:And the ABC guy was suspended for the incorrect story and information.

He was suspended for inferring that all 4 children were also on board the helicopter.

DomeHawk wrote:I don't want to say that the woman was lying, but she did refuse to testify against him. After reading more about the incident, it's a "he-said - she-said" event in my mind.

I think SCH has provided a great deal of information regarding why she may have opted against testifying. To be fair, its a pretty damning list of nefarious pressure tactics placed on the girl.

I think it's less a "he-said, she-said" and more of a "what he thought was happening, what she thought was happening".. if that's even possible.

Uncle Si wrote:

DomeHawk wrote:I don't want to say that the woman was lying, but she did refuse to testify against him. After reading more about the incident, it's a "he-said - she-said" event in my mind.

I think SCH has provided a great deal of information regarding why she may have opted against testifying. To be fair, its a pretty damning list of nefarious pressure tactics placed on the girl.

I think it's less a "he-said, she-said" and more of a "what he thought was happening, what she thought was happening".. if that's even possible.

That's just another way of saying "he-said, she-said."

But, she shows up at the r@p* exam with panties containing another man's semen and pubic hairs? Later explains she "accidentally" put on dirty panties? Had tried to commit suicide multiple times in the four months prior to the alleged incident?

C'mon, this is a mentally unstable young woman who's testimony about virtually anything should be suspect.

This article explains how the Kobe story catalyzed #metoo: https://www.salon.com/2020/01/31/kobe-b ... -misogyny/

People are less likely now to accept how the victim was treated then--including how her name and some details, like those above, were "inadvertently" released to the press during the year-long fight that ensued for her to bring the case to criminal court.

That doesn't make them lesser victims, but what it made her here is more of one, because that stuff should not have been made public.

It's not impeachable for people to have psych histories or shag people the night before they go to work. That doesn't make them less a victim.

Nowadays, reasonable people look at the fact that the evidence shows the victim did not want to be just paid off like Kobe Bryant wanted, and we know this because the cops said he told them that.

DomeHawk wrote:

Uncle Si wrote:

DomeHawk wrote:I don't want to say that the woman was lying, but she did refuse to testify against him. After reading more about the incident, it's a "he-said - she-said" event in my mind.

I think SCH has provided a great deal of information regarding why she may have opted against testifying. To be fair, its a pretty damning list of nefarious pressure tactics placed on the girl.

I think it's less a "he-said, she-said" and more of a "what he thought was happening, what she thought was happening".. if that's even possible.

That's just another way of saying "he-said, she-said."

But, she shows up at the r@p* exam with panties containing another man's semen and pubic hairs? Later explains she "accidentally" put on dirty panties? Had tried to commit suicide multiple times in the four months prior to the alleged incident?

C'mon, this is a mentally unstable young woman who's testimony about virtually anything should be suspect.

It's not the same in my opinion. The difference is whether one thinks something was permitted over that never happened. One has a larger gray area. But probably just semantics.

I also bristle at the notion she was mentally unstable. It's very likely she was traumatized and had no idea how to react. She was also desce see upon by very intimidating forces as well as a mounting need to defend herself instead of the accuser, all in a global wide story.

Something happened. That's obvious given how Kobe responded. Placing any blame on the victim is not just folly, but dangerous.

My only question is how this impacts Kobes legacy. It seems some are will willing to ignore it or wash it away with indignation, which I think is SCHs biggest complaint.

I think Si's take on this is where I'm leaning.

He raped that poor girl. His large cash payout does not change anything.

I wonder what his stance on victims rights was.

The week long tributes have been nauseating.

His ass should have been in prison rather than taking 50 shots a game while maybe getting 1 assist.

I read another story during his impending divorce in 2011 due to continued infidelity he cheated on his wife with over a 100 women...the link I found was taken down but did name some female rappers I've never heard of plus some laker girls and some other lower end celebs. Probably doesnt make him any worse than a lot of athletes or celebs that can get ass easily. He has been portrayed as a saint but looks like he grew up later in his career and life and focused on his kids and business ventures. He was a larger than life sports figure in so I'm okay with the tributes for his play and for his family.