That much is true, and I’m not saying he’s 100% without a doubt not guilty. But that also doesn’t mean he’s obviously guilty does it? This isn’t some Ben Roethlisberger or Kobe Bryant case where there were witnesses near at the time that the assault occurred. We’re all missing so much context and for the media to full…

You say that as if you’d like to see half of the population stripped of their civil rights.

Privacy is not the point here - this article and the others on Deadspin about that matter reeks of an attempt to get the Lions to fire Patricia or the NFL to ban him, despite the fact that there never was a trial and the allegation remains to be unproven.

Even if the NFL/The Patriots had knowledge of the assault indictment - what could/should they have done? Not allowed him to coach in the NFL, based on an unproven allegation? If so, wouldn’t that be the case for every possible employer in any job regarding Patricia? In consequence, every man ever accused of any form…

The tone of the articles make it clear they think the NFL should know everything about their employee’s past, including accusations. For me, I don’t want employers to have the power to make hiring decisions based upon accusations. That is certainly a dystopian situation.

Every New Yorker is a disabled pregnant gay black Jewish Muslim woman lol

The idea that anyone’s career can be destroyed by just making up charges is scary. I’m NOT saying that’s what happened here, just saying that it’s a possibility given the information available.

Allegations are none of anyone’s business as they are merely allegations. There are very good reasons for this. Implying that the NFL, or any other business, should be scouring history of allegations is absurd and goes against the basis of law in this country.

I’m looking at this from a more conventional job perspective. If I’d been indicted falsely, I’d hope that my employers didn’t search for that sort of thing or at the very least ignored it if it’d been dismissed. I would like to think that someone couldn’t just indict me falsely and have it affect my career for decades.

The accused are innocent until proven guilty, for one.

Soooo... people who are indicted for crimes 22 years ago aren’t allowed to have jobs anymore? What the fuck is the point of this? Where could the guy work that you’d find acceptable, Deadspin?

I’m all for covering people of power abusing their power, especially for heinous crimes like rape. But given how long ago this happened, the complete lack of evidence available to the public, and the fact that the case never even went to trial, doesn’t this feel like a witch hunt?

In Massachusetts, it is illegal to base hiring decisions on arrests or indictments that did not lead to conviction. It is probably illegal even to ask about and/or collect that information.

I guess it’s possible they (and the Lions) searched for convictions as part of a background check, but not indictments, especially since the case never went to trial.

Yea with us they sent us a bill in full for her that would be adjusted after said insurance paperwork went through and was re-billed. It was adjusted pretty much immediately, but we did actually receive the full bill knowing that it would state it as if she had no insurance. I guess it’s just how the experience worked…

No it doesn’t. It starts when the child is enrolled on your insurance which does not happen until after birth when you notify the insurance company of the birth and give their details. The child is covered under the mother until then.

Except that is literally not how it works generally with a baby. The baby doesn’t get its own account until after it’s born. So charges are usually covered under the mother. I’ve had multiple children. It all billed under me, even my newborns $33k stay in the NICU. She wasn’t covered as herself under our insurance…

I don’t even understand the out-of-network thing! The doctor is obviously physically located in the hospital and insured to work there, and the hospital is in the network. So???? Like I could understand them refusing to pay for a maverick doctor who burst in through the window and gave you “complimentary” plastic…

The bills are addressed the patient and reflect the care that patient required. They know you’ll be paying for it. They’re billing the insurance under the child’s account because that’s how it works.

Ummm.....when you take your child to the hospital, you consent to the contract for care on behalf of your child.