... by Kelli Tennant. Allegedly happened like 2-3 years ago. I remember watching Kelli on the Dodgers' channel a while ago. Her IG posts the last couple of years seemed to be about finding herself emotionally and feeling challenged. I wonder if it was as a result of this, or was she always troubled?

Thoughts?

https://www.tmz.com/2019/04/22/luke-walton-sued-sexual-battery/

Bill must be proud.

CALiforniALUM said:

---

Bill must be proud.

---

LOL. Maybe this will cause him to stop clowning so much. I used to like Bill, but his clowning on air was not just him being funny, it was disrespectful to his employer, audience and the two teams that were playing.

KoreAmBear said:

---

... by Kelli Tennant. Allegedly happened like 2-3 years ago. I remember watching Kelli on the Dodgers' channel a while ago. Her IG posts the last couple of years seemed to be about finding herself emotionally and feeling challenged. I wonder if it was as a result of this, or was she always troubled?

Thoughts?

https://www.tmz.com/2019/04/22/luke-walton-sued-sexual-battery/

---

Timing is interesting.

Like most cases, it will most likely be a he-said, she-said case. With such a high threshold for criminal charges, and with no monetary damages for a legal conviction, civil suits is the most beneficial route for revenge.

When you cite in a sexual assault suit that includes a "May 2017 incident in which Walton hugged her while making a comment about her attire", it makes me wonder why I haven't filed 236 civil suits against females for when they complimented my suit, smile while hugging me hello or goodbye.

CALiforniALUM said:

---

Bill must be proud.

---

I'm sure he is. His son's highly respected by his peers for both his basketball acumen and personal character, and has had a lot of professional success at a relatively young age.

As we all know by now, if he did it then it was probably not his first rodeo and there may be others that get guilted into speaking up.

bearister said:

---

As we all know by now, if he did it then it was probably not his first rodeo and there may be others that get guilted into speaking up.

---

...or gathering more liars to offer legitimacy to the claim

OaktownBear said:

---

When she cites in her lawsuit:

Walton suddenly pinned her to the bed, placing his hips and legs over her body. Walton began forcing kisses on her neck, face and chest. She claims she screamed for him to stop and tried to free herself, but he held her down, groped her breasts and groin, and rubbed his erection on her leg.

---

Absolutely. No disagreement here. If true -- mainly the part about her rejecting the advance, not the advance itself -- this is a crime. The plausibility of him actively subduing her for a period of time after explicit screams just to get a few moments of pleasure is very low here. But he supposedly stops some time after -- imagine how awkward it would be at this point -- and then pins her against the wall for a second time on her way out after she just screamed in a hotel room where people could hear.

Quote:

---

I don't know who is telling the truth

---

Precisely. And perhaps -- wait for it -- some of the incident's details actually happened but one found it consensual, and therefore appropriate, and the other didn't?

Quote:

---

And actually you misrepresented the nature of the incident she claimed happened in May 2017. She said he greeted her by uttering vulgar, guttural sounds at her and said "mmmmm...you're killing me in that dress" and forced an aggressive hug on her and rubbed his body against hers." Again no idea if she is telling the truth but that is not the same as hugging someone hello and saying "nice suit". If true it would be entirely inappropriate.

---

Inappropriate, arguably yes. Crime? No. I mean women have said "oh you look nice/handsome/good" and made flattering innuendos in ways that were certainly cringe (to me anyways). I smiled, said thank you and moved on. I don't have an axe to grind. If somebody acted inappropriately in a way that I wanted to stop it, I'd SAY IT TO THEM.

I'd take them aside and be like "Hey ma'am, btw, I didn't appreciate the way you touched my love handle. I'm sure you didn't mean anything by it, just wanted to give you a heads up. Thank you so much for understanding."

That's how normal people deal with that stuff. Unless you have an ulterior motive. Or unless you're not actually bothered by the behavior, and only much time afterwards decide to employ it to conjure up victim status worthy of monetary damages.

The hotel incident, if true, is enough. The dinner party is suggestive to me that a contrived pattern is trying to be established.

GBear4Life said:

---

bearister said:

---

As we all know by now, if he did it then it was probably not his first rodeo and there may be others that get guilted into speaking up.

---

...or gathering more liars to offer legitimacy to the claim

---

Multiple accusers are rarely viewed as liars by juries. I'm kinda getting the drift from your posts that you don't think Bill Clinton's multiple accusers are liars.

bearister said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

bearister said:

---

As we all know by now, if he did it then it was probably not his first rodeo and there may be others that get guilted into speaking up.

---

...or gathering more liars to offer legitimacy to the claim

---

Multiple accusers are rarely viewed as liars by juries. I'm kinda getting the drift from your posts that you don't think Bill Clinton's multiple accusers are liars.

---

Which one lol

Consensual or not, Walton's got some explainin' to do with Mrs. Walton.

An ex-gf once told me, after summarizing an episode of The Office to her, that under any circumstances it is inappropriate for a married/committed man to invite a woman to his hotel room, or accept an offer to join him in his hotel room from a woman even under the most innocent of contexts (e.g. like a co-worker who was just trying to avoid drama in her room, as was the case in the episode). I disagreed with her, and it frustrated her greatly.

If I were advising a woman, say my daughter, I'd simply tell her if you don't want to be put in the position to possibly reject somebody's innuendos or advances, avoid it. If you're comfortable and confident there's no sexual pretense, then go for it. Just be prepared to assert your boundaries and don't blame him for making an advance. Blame him if he doesn't accept your unambiguous rejection.

I don't mean to be flippant, but, if this sorry episode causes brother Bill to either leave his undeserved gig or causes him to be more professional and decorous on his broadcasts, perhaps this cloud will have a silver lining. elton John sang that \marilyn Monroes' candle burnt out long before her legend ever did. The same is true for the former druggie from Westwood. He's been a washed-out hippie for 35 years. If he had to audition with a prepared tape like lotsa of others, he would be lucky to land a gig as a security guard. Please indeed!!!!!!

correction: Bill Walton is the Father----not thge Brother.

OaktownBear said:

---

And actually you misrepresented

---

This wouldn't be an unusual occurrence with our friend GBear.

sycasey said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

And actually you misrepresented

---

This wouldn't be an unusual occurrence with our friend GBear.

---

Please don't use the word friend when speaking about him.

GBear4Life "There is a negative correlation between black crime and black freedom, prosperity and education. "

Yogi Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

And actually you misrepresented

---

This wouldn't be an unusual occurrence with our friend GBear.

---

Please don't use the word friend when speaking about him.

GBear4Life "There is a negative correlation between black crime and black freedom, prosperity and education. "

---

I gather, Yogi, that GBear4Life's comment was meant to be--or read as--racist (which wouldn't surprise me); however as written here, it is probably unobjectionable: I think this is saying that the more freedom, prosperity and education, the less crime; maybe a misplaced negative?

UrsaMajor said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

And actually you misrepresented

---

This wouldn't be an unusual occurrence with our friend GBear.

---

Please don't use the word friend when speaking about him.

GBear4Life "There is a negative correlation between black crime and black freedom, prosperity and education. "

---

I gather, Yogi, that GBear4Life's comment was meant to be--or read as--racist (which wouldn't surprise me); however as written here, it is probably unobjectionable: I think this is saying that the more freedom, prosperity and education, the less crime; maybe a misplaced negative?

---

I'm assuming it is where you put the cause and effect. More freedom and prosperity causes crime rates to fall is a very different statement than more black crime is the cause of their lack of freedom prosperity and education.

If I'm the Sacramento Kings brass, I'm getting the legal team ready to nullify the contract, just in case. Doubtful this nugget came up in the interview.

OaktownBear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

And actually you misrepresented

---

This wouldn't be an unusual occurrence with our friend GBear.

---

Please don't use the word friend when speaking about him.

GBear4Life "There is a negative correlation between black crime and black freedom, prosperity and education. "

---

I gather, Yogi, that GBear4Life's comment was meant to be--or read as--racist (which wouldn't surprise me); however as written here, it is probably unobjectionable: I think this is saying that the more freedom, prosperity and education, the less crime; maybe a misplaced negative?

---

I'm assuming it is where you put the cause and effect. More freedom and prosperity causes crime rates to fall is a very different statement than more black crime is the cause of their lack of freedom prosperity and education.

---

Nah, he means that when black people get more prosperity and education, crime rates increase, therefore there is a problem with "black culture."

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/86962/replies/1611456

Can you all at least restrict the liberal thought police to the thread that his despised statements are in?

I just want to make sure his position is described accurately.

bearsandgiants said:

---

If I'm the Sacramento Kings brass, I'm getting the legal team ready to nullify the contract, just in case. Doubtful this nugget came up in the interview.

---

Didn't bother Patricia or the Lions.

Thanks, Sy. What you're saying ius that in addition to his being bigoted, he can't put together a sentence to say what he actually means.

Love it:

Quote:

---

"These claims are false and Luke's innocence will be proven in court. Yesterday's press conference was a poorly staged attempt to portray the accuser as a viable spokesperson for an important movement. Her lawyers want to create a public circus to distract from their complete lack of evidence to support their outrageous claims. We will not try this case in the media or pay them a dime," [said Walton's lawyer]

---

Let them know right up front, and in public, that you're not going to entertain a settlement.

On a Kings blog with 500+ posts, they are virtually 100% in favor of firing Walton right now and, not surprisingly, invoke moral high ground in doing so. Due process, an investigation, etc are irrelevant; an accusation is reasonable grounds for dismissing.

Truly, truly remarkable.

bearsandgiants said:

---

If I'm the Sacramento Kings brass, I'm getting the legal team ready to nullify the contract, just in case. Doubtful this nugget came up in the interview.

---

An unproven civil (not criminal) allegation doesn't seem like a legal excuse for terminating the contract. If Walton knew a lawsuit filing was imminent and failed to disclose that prior to the contract, that might be though it is not a slam dunk.

Innocent till proven guilty. That is the law.

Since this is a civil case the remedy the plaintiff has is a financial award. I'd guess that her attorney (or her) threatened the lawsuit before filing it but maybe not.

GBear4Life said:

---

On a Kings blog with 500+ posts, they are virtually 100% in favor of firing Walton right now and, not surprisingly, invoke moral high ground in doing so. Due process, an investigation, etc are irrelevant; an accusation is reasonable grounds for dismissing.

---

King's fans are so used to the worst case scenario happening, they automatically assume Walton must be guilty. Better to wait until the actual litigation shows what Walton is guilty of doing, or not.

calbear80 said:

---

Innocent till proven guilty. That is the law.

---

You're referring to criminal law. Walton is not accused of a crime. This is a civil matter.

Luke is lucky that the d@ckhead POTUS demands to be front and center in the news every day thus relegating 99% of the other stories to a one news cycle shelf life.

Bear19 said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

On a Kings blog with 500+ posts, they are virtually 100% in favor of firing Walton right now and, not surprisingly, invoke moral high ground in doing so. Due process, an investigation, etc are irrelevant; an accusation is reasonable grounds for dismissing.

---

King's fans are so used to the worst case scenario happening, they automatically assume Walton must be guilty. Better to wait until the actual litigation shows what Walton is guilty of doing, or not.

---

I don't think that's it. They are thinking and idealizing what it means to be 'woke' in our culture.