UM pays Jordan Johnson

[TomCat88]

To the casual observer the message that is conveyed.... "It pays to rape."

Please elaborate.

Why would you want, or need, him to elaborate?

[Common Cat]

To the casual observer the message that is conveyed.... "It pays to rape."

wow...

I know- it is a calouse statement and I apologize. And no, I don't believe it.

[GRIZ1STCATS2ND]

To the casual observer the message that is conveyed.... "It pays to rape."

Please elaborate.

Why would you want, or need, him to elaborate?

The comment could easily be construed or enturperated many different ways. I'm curious to know what the poster meant.

[Common Cat]

To the casual observer the message that is conveyed.... "It pays to rape."

Please elaborate.

Why would you want, or need, him to elaborate?

The comment could easily be construed or enturperated many different ways. I'm curious to know what the poster meant.

What I meant was the most simplistic the view of a passerby. Johnson is in the news for rape....time passes.... Johnson gets a settlement. It's low hanging fruit for the uniformed.

[SonomaCat]

I think the conclusion a casual observer would reach based on the headlines alone is that UM is essentially admitting that they falsely accused/persecuted Johnson ... which is presumably why Johnson's team filed the lawsuit. If anybody asks about this in the future, all he has to say is that not only was he not convicted of a crime, he actually received a settlement for a civil case against one of the parties involved in accusing him. I doubt the size of the settlement is much of a concern for him -- it's all about optics.

I've said all along that I have no idea what actually happened, but I hope he didn't do anything wrong and I further hope that this settlement gives him the ability to lead a normal life going forward. I also hope for the best for the accuser. Sucks all the way around for everyone.

[GRIZ1STCATS2ND]

To the casual observer the message that is conveyed.... "It pays to rape."

Please elaborate.

Why would you want, or need, him to elaborate?

The comment could easily be construed or enturperated many different ways. I'm curious to know what the poster meant.

What I meant was the most simplistic the view of a passerby. Johnson is in the news for rape....time passes.... Johnson gets a settlement. It's low hanging fruit for the uniformed.

I see and unfortunately, right you are.

[Grizlaw]

What I meant was the most simplistic the view of a passerby. Johnson is in the news for rape....time passes.... Johnson gets a settlement. It's low hanging fruit for the uniformed.

I see and unfortunately, right you are.

I guess. What's the takeaway, though? The state shouldn't have settled (and/or a judge or jury shouldn't rule in JJ's favor) so as not to send the wrong message to any uninformed idiots who might happen to be paying attention?