Just in from the Dallas Morning News. OK rb Rodney Anderson has been accused of rape by a date. She's yet to file charges. Not much else is known right now. More will be revealed stay tuned.
Oklahoma running back accused of rape
- Thread starter outhereincali
- Start date
Timeline on this seems suspect but we’ll see. His attorney makes a pretty strong statement about it. Everything I’ve ever heard is he is a straight up good kid.
http://www.oudaily.com/sports/oklah...cle_1c24ccd0-d9c8-11e7-aefc-0b9223f434a8.html
http://www.oudaily.com/sports/oklah...cle_1c24ccd0-d9c8-11e7-aefc-0b9223f434a8.html
Last edited:
Wow.
So I just read the statement the girl/woman gave. The whole timeline is important here-
It appears she was out drinking, got sh!t faced and started making out with Anderson. So she admits consent at this point. She then says she planned on calling an uber, but "friends" of his said he should take her home. So she agrees to let him take her home. At this point we have two shows of consent on her part. She bring him into her apartment to continue the hanky Panky session, it would seem. During the second make out session she said he felt her up. I think we would agree that this is sort of how these things progress..... at some point she said she pukes. Now she doesn't say if he felt her up before or after she pukes (unless I'm misreading it) but this is where it gets a little fuzzy.
She said she "felt trapped". Like she couldn't leave....... and being in her house, I guess she's right. She goes on to describe that for three days after, her nipples were terribly sore. Now, this is where it starts sounding bad for Anderson. It's no secret that "some" women like a little "extra curricular activities" during sex, but wanting that when the woman is sober vs wanting it when she's been drinking heavily is a different thing altogether.
The next thing that's a bad look for Anderson is the whole puking incident. Look, if you're out, meet a girl, take her home and she starts yacking, it's game over bro. Hold her hair while she pukes, give her a glass of water and a cold washcloth on the forhead and get the fvck out. Leave a note on the counter telling her that she puked, you held her hair and gave her a glass of water, put your phone number on there, sign your name and get the fvck out.
It's just not worth it.
So I just read the statement the girl/woman gave. The whole timeline is important here-
It appears she was out drinking, got sh!t faced and started making out with Anderson. So she admits consent at this point. She then says she planned on calling an uber, but "friends" of his said he should take her home. So she agrees to let him take her home. At this point we have two shows of consent on her part. She bring him into her apartment to continue the hanky Panky session, it would seem. During the second make out session she said he felt her up. I think we would agree that this is sort of how these things progress..... at some point she said she pukes. Now she doesn't say if he felt her up before or after she pukes (unless I'm misreading it) but this is where it gets a little fuzzy.
She said she "felt trapped". Like she couldn't leave....... and being in her house, I guess she's right. She goes on to describe that for three days after, her nipples were terribly sore. Now, this is where it starts sounding bad for Anderson. It's no secret that "some" women like a little "extra curricular activities" during sex, but wanting that when the woman is sober vs wanting it when she's been drinking heavily is a different thing altogether.
The next thing that's a bad look for Anderson is the whole puking incident. Look, if you're out, meet a girl, take her home and she starts yacking, it's game over bro. Hold her hair while she pukes, give her a glass of water and a cold washcloth on the forhead and get the fvck out. Leave a note on the counter telling her that she puked, you held her hair and gave her a glass of water, put your phone number on there, sign your name and get the fvck out.
It's just not worth it.
Yes, it does seem suspect. She starts to remember things 2 weeks later? Not saying nothing happened, just agreeing that the timeframe does seem odd. At this point it seems to be she said / he said unless she went and had a rape kit performed, which isn't mentioned?
I don’t know the facts, just speculating like everyone else right now. There are always 2 sides to every story. If you listen to her side, you have to consider his. If he did indeed do something wrong, then it seems a little odd that she would be reaching out to him trying to get him to attend a couple social events with her after this supposedly happened, at least according to Anderson’s side. I guess once he turned her down she started remembering things differently? Something tells me Anderson has texts from her after Nov. 18th that may paint a different story than what has been reported to date. Keep in mind, it’s my understanding that a restraining order wasn’t issued, only the request was filed by her. A judge has to approve right?
His name reminds me of Rotnei Anderson. I was fully prepared to like this kid, despite his playing for the Sooners, since Rotnei's a personal friend and a really tremendous person.
Oh, well.
Oh, well.
Funny reading this thread - "If you listen to her side..." "Timeline on this seems suspect..." "...good kid", "she said/he said." At Baylor, it is accepted that 52 sexual assaults occurred, even though there were only 3 charges brought and 1 conviction. I seem to remember a lot of Sooners bashing Baylor based on the presumption that all 52 were correct and every story was accurate. Now the Sooners want to examine the facts?
We all know what Stoops would do in this situation. Coach Riley has already shown he is a stern disciplinarian by benching Mayfield for TWO plays. We will soon know if he learned his lessons well under Coach Stoops.
We all know what Stoops would do in this situation. Coach Riley has already shown he is a stern disciplinarian by benching Mayfield for TWO plays. We will soon know if he learned his lessons well under Coach Stoops.
Well that and your coach took off and players were allowed to transfer etc, but other than that, yes this is the same thing. I do agree that Mayfield’s punishment was not long enough and I guarantee you if he had to do it all over again, Riley would have had Murray take a knee to extend the drive at least a few more plays to REALLY drive his point home with Mayfield. As far as Anderson goes, if he has proof that indicates she was pursuing him after the fact as his attorney contends, then its going to really put a dent in her claims. That, and her coming forward 2 weeks later claiming that she NOW remembers what happened. If it’s shown that Anderson truly did something wrong then by all means he should be gone.
Last edited:
I bet he is thrown off the team on Jan 9th. Got to show that character comes first.
Actually, it sounds pretty sketchy. She probably wanted a relationship and he wanted a 20 minute relationship.
Actually, it sounds pretty sketchy. She probably wanted a relationship and he wanted a 20 minute relationship.
Ya but that doesn't constitute rape.
And that's the line that we have to be careful about crossing. Nobody wants to look at any female and say "I don't know if I believe her claims", but at the same time, we have to look at the facts----- all of them. Including the possibility that she wanted a serious relationship and he wanted to hit it and quit it.
The only side of this story that OU and the Norman justice system will care about is Rodney Anderson plays football. Nothing to see here.
Yeah, its refreshing to see how the new 0U coach is continuing with the hard as nails discipline that Stoops had there.
Here’s a question for anyone in the know: it’s early still but let’s just say this plays out like it’s kind of looking like it may. If this comes down a case where it’s a one night stand and she may have wanted it to be more than that, so, in return she goes around claiming rape etc., is there any retribution on his part for possibly slandering him?
For me --- I can't believe that society has gotten away from the innocent until proven guilty concept. Unless you have pictures, or insurmountable evidence of wrongdoing, how can you punish without a day in court? Roger Goodell is enormously unpopular now in part because he is meting out punishment without having a full trial, complete with right to cross examine the accuser under oath. I've asked this on this board before, and never been fully satisfied with the answer - is everybody here ok with the two guys at UT who were dismissed for sexual assault a couple of years ago, only to have it determined later that were not guilty in their subsequent trial? Their names are forever stained, and their futures compromised because of the quick action taken by UT. I understand that sexual assault victims don't want to have to put their past on trial, and that is a legitimate concern. I'm not sure there is a hard and fast way to protect the victim as well as the accused.
We've come to the point where chasing women at bars/clubs has become potentially very coslty. It's best to keep your rocket in your pocket, find a quality woman, and do things the right way.
You bring up some good points. I saw the other day where it was reported that the DA is not pursuing rape charges against Harvey Weinstein. I’m assumng that would be due to lack of DNA evidence and/or no physical witness to the crimes? Statute of limitations maybe?
I don't disagree, but imo the public has never been innocent until proven guilty. It's just that the public didn't know much 20+ years ago. Now they know every accusation/rumor instantly. We've always craved instant justice, but that's not how the system is designed.
Exactly and let's not act like judgement doesn't automatically come into play when accusations are made about a man/woman molesting a child. It's an automatic hanging on SM/public period. I know we believe kids more than adults but as far as guilty until proven innocence goes it's always been that way.
If she's lying she needs to be taken to court and pay the penalty also publicly apologize to him since it's all over the internet now.
Last edited:
If she was puking drunk, then she probably didn't have the legal capacity to consent. That is considered rape. Having said that, it's difficult as hell to prove since it doesn't sound like she got a rape kit. The hold her hair and give her a glass of water advice earlier is the right approach .
Yep. I'm a Country Boy and I equate taking advantage of drunk women to tying one back leg up tight to a horse's belly before that first ride and then calling yourself a Bronc Buster.
Innocent until proven guilty only applies in a court of law, and even then If you when your case you aren’t declared innocent you are just declared not guilty.
Private buisness, court of public opinion, etc is under no obligation to follow and innocent till proven guilty standard.
On this it sounds like this will go though the legal process. So we will see.
Private buisness, court of public opinion, etc is under no obligation to follow and innocent till proven guilty standard.
On this it sounds like this will go though the legal process. So we will see.
Weinstein won’t see charges on most of his stuff due to statutes of limitations. DA did refuse to press charges on one case that they could have. Police thought they had a lot of evidence and enough to charge. DA wouldn’t do it though. A lot of speculation as to why.
He will most likely pay out the ass in Civil court though.
"The court finds for the plaintiff in the amount of $50,000. However, due to the nature of the defendant's actions, the court orders the defendant to eat $50,000 worth of $1 bills and pay the plaintiff when it comes out."
We know that. The argument is how scary that is in a society where all information either true or false disseminates instantly. 20+ years ago that wasn't the case. It's also interesting that we design our legal system under the belief that it's better to set 100 guilty man free than to send 1 innocent man to jail, but we actually don't really believe that based on our personal actions.
So, it turns out, according to his lawyer and dozens of text messages that have been shown to authorities, that after the night in question, the young lady sent repeated overtures to the kid, and he continued to brush her off.
She then hits him up for ducking her and says that she want a relationship. He declined and basically tells her to scram. It was THEN, that she decided to go to the police and file charges for "sexual misconduct".
I can't stand the gooners, but it appears, in this instance, that he is innocent.
She then hits him up for ducking her and says that she want a relationship. He declined and basically tells her to scram. It was THEN, that she decided to go to the police and file charges for "sexual misconduct".
I can't stand the gooners, but it appears, in this instance, that he is innocent.
It’s turning out about like it was sounding BUT she really tried to cause him a major problem accusing him of rape and going viral. Not sure what becomes of that but dang, that’s not good in her part.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
207 days 'til Columbus... who is the OC/DC/QB? | Behind Enemy Lines- Latest: CodyCarpentier
-
-
-
