ESPN delays broadcast debut of Down in the Valley

N0tmyfault

N0tmyfault

Bench
#92
#92
PurpleHaze said:
Mayor Kevin Johnson announces will not seek reelection.

http://www.kcra.com/news/local-news/news-sacramento/mayor-johnson-not-seeking-reelection/35955450

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/city-beat/article40567404.html
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not a resident of Sacramento, but from the outside looking in, it appears he did an excellent job as mayor. I believe the city now has a vision for the future and has taken great strides towards being a more modern and economical city. His talents will be missed, but his poor choices and reputation outside his professional life will tarnish his legacy. This isn't 1990 anymore - information is too easily accessed to sweep things like this under the rug.
 
PurpleHaze

PurpleHaze

All-Star
#93
#93
About a year ago, well before latest blow up regarding KJs personal life it was speculated might forgo running for another term as Sacramento mayor in order to seek higher political office. Even running for governor was put out there. The question is, has scandal so tarnished his reputation that could never happen.
 
KingsFanSince85

KingsFanSince85

All-Star
#94
#94
It's a really sad day when someone is perceived guilty until proven innocent. Words are just words and accusations are just accusations until proven true. Unfortunately, far too many believe nearly everything they read, regardless of the source, and don't care about context or discovering the truth. As I said before, I have no idea whether the things Kevin Johnson has been accused of are true or not. But neither does anybody else, even though some stubbornly believe that they do.

What I do know for sure is this. The guy was never charged, even those the statutes hadn't run out at the time he was accused. If there was a fire to go along with the smoke, he would have been charged. He wasn't. And I believe in doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. If I was ever accused of a crime, I'd appreciate the courtesy of being perceived innocent until proven otherwise. Unless some new info comes to light, I'm going to continue to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. Too bad so many others can't give what they'd hope to receive in return. Too bad most of this is politically driven, where hitting below the belt is commonplace.
 
S

sdballer

Starter
#95
#95
KingsFanSince85 said:
It's a really sad day when someone is perceived guilty until proven innocent. Words are just words and accusations are just accusations until proven true. Unfortunately, far too many believe nearly everything they read, regardless of the source, and don't care about context or discovering the truth. As I said before, I have no idea whether the things Kevin Johnson has been accused of are true or not. But neither does anybody else, even though some stubbornly believe that they do.

What I do know for sure is this. The guy was never charged, even those the statutes hadn't run out at the time he was accused. If there was a fire to go along with the smoke, he would have been charged. He wasn't. And I believe in doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. If I was ever accused of a crime, I'd appreciate the courtesy of being perceived innocent until proven otherwise. Unless some new info comes to light, I'm going to continue to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. Too bad so many others can't give what they'd hope to receive in return. Too bad most of this is politically driven, where hitting below the belt is commonplace.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, there was no political motivation in her accusing him of molesting her and he didn't do himself any favors on that confrontation call.
 
KingsFanSince85

KingsFanSince85

All-Star
#96
#96
sdballer said:
On the other hand, there was no political motivation in her accusing him of molesting her and he didn't do himself any favors on that confrontation call.
Click to expand...
Political motivation, no. But you have no idea whether this person had any other type of motivation. None of us know. Some people make accusations simply for attention. Not saying I know that's the case, but it's certainly possible. Happens all the time.

With regard to this confrontation call, I've never heard it but I've heard a lot about it. As I said before, if it was so damning or if they had any type of real evidence, they would have charged him. They didn't. That tells me it isn't the smoking gun some try to make it out to be.
 
S

sdballer

Starter
#97
#97
KingsFanSince85 said:
Political motivation, no. But you have no idea whether this person had any other type of motivation. None of us know. Some people make accusations simply for attention. Not saying I know that's the case, but it's certainly possible. Happens all the time.

With regard to this confrontation call, I've never heard it but I've heard a lot about it. As I said before, if it was so damning or if they had any type of real evidence, they would have charged him. They didn't. That tells me it isn't the smoking gun some try to make it out to be.
Click to expand...
You might want to listen to it or at least not suggest that the lack of formal charges in some way proves it didn't happen. All I know is if some 15 year old girl calls me and says remember when we were naked and you touched me, pretty sure I wouldn't respond anything close to "were we totally naked?"
 
L

Livinthedream

All-Star
#99
#99
sdballer said:
You might want to listen to it or at least not suggest that the lack of formal charges in some way proves it didn't happen. All I know is if some 15 year old girl calls me and says remember when we were naked and you touched me, pretty sure I wouldn't respond anything close to "were we totally naked?"
Click to expand...
Again, I think we're mixing law with emotions. KJ should have never been in that situation. However, no charges were filed. Right or wrong, the girl and whoever represented her made a choice 20 years ago to not go forward with a case.

That is what is being said. He was accused, but not convicted in a court of law. Meaning, we really don't have all the evidence in the story. Just our emotions.

Edit: that being said, I wouldn't leave my 2 girls alone with him.
 
Last edited:
Hoovtrain

Hoovtrain

All-Star
#100
#100
sdballer said:
On the other hand, there was no political motivation in her accusing him of molesting her and he didn't do himself any favors on that confrontation call.
Click to expand...
sdballer said:
You might want to listen to it or at least not suggest that the lack of formal charges in some way proves it didn't happen. All I know is if some 15 year old girl calls me and says remember when we were naked and you touched me, pretty sure I wouldn't respond anything close to "were we totally naked?"
Click to expand...
Yes, I would love to know the context behind admitting showering with a 15 year old and saying "I don't recall us being 100% naked "...that among MANY things he said on that call . I'm sure he had a perfectly good reason for being in the shower with her and for his memory failing him when it came to just how naked they were
 
N0tmyfault

N0tmyfault

Bench
#101
#101
KingsFanSince85 said:
Political motivation, no. But you have no idea whether this person had any other type of motivation. None of us know. Some people make accusations simply for attention. Not saying I know that's the case, but it's certainly possible. Happens all the time.

With regard to this confrontation call, I've never heard it but I've heard a lot about it. As I said before, if it was so damning or if they had any type of real evidence, they would have charged him. They didn't. That tells me it isn't the smoking gun some try to make it out to be.
Click to expand...
Have you read the transcripts of the confrontation call? You responded to a post of mine that I posted it in, so I assume you did. It seems you are ignoring the facts. Innocent until proven guilty, as I have mentioned before, is for the courts. Has nothing to do with public opinion. The courts have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The public does not. That confrontation call gives me strong doubts about his innocence.
 
N0tmyfault

N0tmyfault

Bench
#102
#102
Livinthedream said:
Again, I think we're mixing law with emotions. KJ should have never been in that situation. However, no charges were filed. Right or wrong, the girl and whoever represented her made a choice 20 years ago to not go forward with a case.

That is what is being said. He was accused, but not convicted in a court of law. Meaning, we really don't have all the evidence in the story. Just our emotions.

Edit: that being said, I wouldn't leave my 2 girls alone with him.
Click to expand...
I think that's the consensus of most responsible parents.

Side note: The girl had o say on whether charges were brought up against KJ. That falls directly on the DAs office. This case was ruined the second the victim's therapist inexplicably contacted KJ about the victim's allegations. I hope this therapist was sued and has never been employed as a therapist for this absolute dereliction of duty.
 
KingsFanSince85

KingsFanSince85

All-Star
#103
#103
N0tmyfault said:
Have you read the transcripts of the confrontation call? You responded to a post of mine that I posted it in, so I assume you did. It seems you are ignoring the facts. Innocent until proven guilty, as I have mentioned before, is for the courts. Has nothing to do with public opinion. The courts have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The public does not. That confrontation call gives me strong doubts about his innocence.
Click to expand...
Again, I counter with -- why didn't the DA charge him with a crime? You seem to be ignoring that. If the confrontation call is so damning and essentially an admission of guilt - why didn't the DA charge him?

And no, I still haven't read the transcripts because I really don't care. One, the guy isn't being tried and, two, if it was as damning as you think -- he would have been charged with something back then. Since he wasn't, I'm not going to bother playing detective and wasting my time researching all that crap. In the end nobody is ever going to know for sure and it doesn't change my opinion of what he accomplished as mayor.

At this point, the only thing I've seen was the short video that was posted a while back of the supposed victim's interview with police. I didn't think she sounded very credible for numerous reasons. But, regardless, I will never know and it isn't worth my time to dive into something that the DA didn't feel was worth pursuing over 20 years ago. Lastly, it's all being dredged up again due to various agendas -- not because new evidence has come to light and that rubs me the wrong way too.
 
Hoovtrain

Hoovtrain

All-Star
#104
#104
^85', Notmyfault already explained in detail previously why the DA may not have filed charges. if you read the transcript it can also give you a little more insight into why charges were not filed...regardless of how damning it was.
Don't you also think it's worth you time to delve into it if you are going to discuss it?
 
Last edited:
N0tmyfault

N0tmyfault

Bench
#105
#105
KingsFanSince85 said:
Again, I counter with -- why didn't the DA charge him with a crime? You seem to be ignoring that. If the confrontation call is so damning and essentially an admission of guilt - why didn't the DA charge him?

And no, I still haven't read the transcripts because I really don't care. One, the guy isn't being tried and, two, if it was as damning as you think -- he would have been charged with something back then. Since he wasn't, I'm not going to bother playing detective and wasting my time researching all that crap. In the end nobody is ever going to know for sure and it doesn't change my opinion of what he accomplished as mayor.

At this point, the only thing I've seen was the short video that was posted a while back of the supposed victim's interview with police. I didn't think she sounded very credible for numerous reasons. But, regardless, I will never know and it isn't worth my time to dive into something that the DA didn't feel was worth pursuing over 20 years ago. Lastly, it's all being dredged up again due to various agendas -- not because new evidence has come to light and that rubs me the wrong way too.
Click to expand...
I assisted in a homicide investigation several years ago, where a body was shot execution-style in a rural area. We had knowledge of who the suspects were. We interviewed one of the suspects, who had fled the county (and was eventually apprehended), and he confessed to being there and assisting (but not the shooter), but his confession alone was not enough for the DA to bring charges against him. We need more evidence and we did not have it. You can not get a conviction off a confession alone. There needs to be other supporting evidence. I'm not an attorney, so I'm sure there are other reasons too, I just don't have them.
 
kennadog

kennadog

Dog On It!
#106
#106
Essentially, Captain Factorial has it right. This McKenna guy is a rabid Michelle Rhee hater and anti-charter school guy. This attack on KJ is just one more way to attack Rhee.

He definitely has a personal vendetta going. To me, he just abused the victim again.

I saw the documentary. Anybody likely to see it, would certainly see KJ shown as hometown boy makes good, saves his city's team against impossible odds. Others get credit, too, including high praise for the great fans.

And the truth? Saving the team likely doesn't happen without KJ in the right position at the right time. The fact that this was the son of a teenage unwed mother, who grew up in a very rough neighborhood, achieved NBA stardom, comes home, becomes mayor, and climbs Mt Everest to save his hometown team IS the stuff of a great story. As a documentary maker, I'd have chosen to go with that narrative of the story, too.

But, KJ also has dark side, no doubt. It's why, as a co-founder of #FANS, then Crown Downtown (along with Mike, Warhawk and Captain Factorial), I, personally could never be a complete, rah-rah supporter of KJ.

We all knew about the accusations in Arizona, before he was elected mayor. Then there was an alleged incident with a student at the charter high school he helped start. More recently, there were accusations of sexual harassment of a city hall employee. There were no charges filed over the charter school incident and an internal investigation of the sexual harassment accusations found them unsubstantiated.

Still, it all makes me a bit queasy. On top of that his charter high school was found to have misused federal grant funds, was fined and had to repay funds.

There has been a bit of a foul smell over his takeover of the Black Mayors Conference and allegations that he used city employees for that. Nothing proven, yet.

There's just too much for me. It all just bothers me, more than a little. Having said that, I think he's done a lot of terrific things for this city and raised its profile nationally and internationally. He is the biggest reason the Kings are staying and the city will have an exciting new arena downtown, along with lots of other revitalizing development.

Bottom line, I can't unequivocally support this guy. I'm not even sure I like him. But am I happy he's been mayor through this? You'd better damn believe it. And not even just for the new arena and the Kings.

But Deadspin/McKenna putting this national attention on 20 year old accusations to stop ESPN from putting this documentary on the air is a purely personal, ugly vendetta. McKenna used this victim to further his attacks on Rhee, by attacking KJ. To me, he has questionable morals, too.

I'm sad and hope the documentary will be shown some day. I am proud of what the fans and this city accomplished by never giving up. I'm proud of my part in it, proud of my friends, proud of my city. Rightly or wrongly, when ESPN caved, I felt like the fans and my city got crapped on again. I can't help it. That's just how I feel. I watched it and felt like it was my story, our story, my city's story. A real life Cinderella story, no matter who was the main character.
 
Last edited:
kennadog

kennadog

Dog On It!
#108
#108
Thank you, Dave. It's just not a black and white situation and most of us may never have even close to the truth. KJ is certainly a lightening rod of a person for good and bad.

Although he was the central figure in the documentary, and rightly so in my opinion, I'm grateful for everyone who stepped up for our city and our team. That most certainly includes you. You we're the public voice for the fans. KJ might have been the team captain, but winning a championship takes the whole team.
 
itzcoatl

itzcoatl

Bench
#109
#109
N0tmyfault said:
I assisted in a homicide investigation several years ago, where a body was shot execution-style in a rural area. We had knowledge of who the suspects were. We interviewed one of the suspects, who had fled the county (and was eventually apprehended), and he confessed to being there and assisting (but not the shooter), but his confession alone was not enough for the DA to bring charges against him. We need more evidence and we did not have it. You can not get a conviction off a confession alone. There needs to be other supporting evidence. I'm not an attorney, so I'm sure there are other reasons too, I just don't have them.
Click to expand...
Ok. Here's what I think this all means.

1. "We had knowledge of who the suspects were" means "we had some suspects."
2. "We had interviewed one of the suspects, who had fled the country (and was eventually apprehended)..." means this guy committed some other crime(s), otherwise no one would have arrested him. If there really was no other evidence for the execution-style shooting, there would have been no probable cause to apprehend this "fleeing" suspect.
3. "...and he confessed to being there and assisting (but not the shooter)" means he was trying to snitch his way to a lighter sentence for some other crimes through a plea bargain.
4. "...but his confession alone was not enough for the DA to bring charges against him." means the DA knew the guy was trying to snitch his way to a lighter sentence and knew he wasn't credible.

The assistant's confession could have been evidence against the accused shooter. And moreover, the assistant's confession likely would have had some factual basis behind it, so presumably there would have been more facts behind the confession than merely a single "I did it" or "I was there and so was Mr. X and he did it" type-statement.

I don't think it's fair to anyone to be judged on crimes based upon the citizenry's incomplete knowledge of the facts. yeah, there's an interview out there. We don't have all the evidence before us. It is irresponsible and unfair to make a decision of guilt, whether in court or in public opinion, without all of the facts.
 
N0tmyfault

N0tmyfault

Bench
#111
#111
itzcoatl said:
Ok. Here's what I think this all means.

1. "We had knowledge of who the suspects were" means "we had some suspects."
2. "We had interviewed one of the suspects, who had fled the country (and was eventually apprehended)..." means this guy committed some other crime(s), otherwise no one would have arrested him. If there really was no other evidence for the execution-style shooting, there would have been no probable cause to apprehend this "fleeing" suspect.
3. "...and he confessed to being there and assisting (but not the shooter)" means he was trying to snitch his way to a lighter sentence for some other crimes through a plea bargain.
4. "...but his confession alone was not enough for the DA to bring charges against him." means the DA knew the guy was trying to snitch his way to a lighter sentence and knew he wasn't credible.

The assistant's confession could have been evidence against the accused shooter. And moreover, the assistant's confession likely would have had some factual basis behind it, so presumably there would have been more facts behind the confession than merely a single "I did it" or "I was there and so was Mr. X and he did it" type-statement.

I don't think it's fair to anyone to be judged on crimes based upon the citizenry's incomplete knowledge of the facts. yeah, there's an interview out there. We don't have all the evidence before us. It is irresponsible and unfair to make a decision of guilt, whether in court or in public opinion, without all of the facts.
Click to expand...

My whole point was that a confession without evidence is not good enough for the DA to pursue. The poster I quoted question why charges were not brought forth on KJ when his confrontation call was pretty damning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.