Report: Joshua Primo allegedly exposed himself to women

[Ayt]

I get the apples to oranges thing you are pointing out, but it's important to note that we charge people with what they actually do as opposed to another's fears of what they might do. If the latter were the case, there really wouldn't be many people free from incarceration.

You are improperly reframing the issue. We do charge based on the level of threat. The threat from a large professional athlete exposing himself to a woman in a room is different from a woman flashing her tits from her car at a Citgo (the example brought up).

The fact that he is a large, professional athlete is entirely irrelevant. It should be anyway, right? We know how these things actually go though. A black man wearing a hoodie doesn’t actually get treated just as everyone else does, but they certainly should, right?

You charge Primo for what he did, not because someone was afraid that he might do more because he was… ?

You literally don't understand how law works. By your idiotic logic, a punch to the head from a scrawny 12 year old is equivalent to the punch to the head from a 240 pound title holding boxer because they are both punches.

[Xatticus]

You are improperly reframing the issue. We do charge based on the level of threat. The threat from a large professional athlete exposing himself to a woman in a room is different from a woman flashing her tits from her car at a Citgo (the example brought up).

The fact that he is a large, professional athlete is entirely irrelevant. It should be anyway, right? We know how these things actually go though. A black man wearing a hoodie doesn’t actually get treated just as everyone else does, but they certainly should, right?

You charge Primo for what he did, not because someone was afraid that he might do more because he was… ?

You literally don't understand how law works. By your idiotic logic, a punch to the head from a scrawny 12 year old is equivalent to the punch to the head from a 240 pound title holding boxer because they are both punches.

I’m sorry… who did Primo punch in the head?

I’ve at no previous point in my life been more appreciative of the work done by the ACLU.

[Chinook]

You are improperly reframing the issue. We do charge based on the level of threat. The threat from a large professional athlete exposing himself to a woman in a room is different from a woman flashing her tits from her car at a Citgo (the example brought up).

The fact that he is a large, professional athlete is entirely irrelevant. It should be anyway, right? We know how these things actually go though. A black man wearing a hoodie doesn’t actually get treated just as everyone else does, but they certainly should, right?

You charge Primo for what he did, not because someone was afraid that he might do more because he was… ?

You literally don't understand how law works. By your idiotic logic, a punch to the head from a scrawny 12 year old is equivalent to the punch to the head from a 240 pound title holding boxer because they are both punches.

I'm not a huge fans of letting "less threatening" people get away with stuff like this either. I absolutely think a woman who made unwanted sexual gestures at a man she has power over should have the book thrown at her. And de jure or de facto, that often doesn't happen. That's a non-sequiter here. But as this thing evolves, it may become a theme. Folks should be open-minded in terms of what questions this will call up, independent of the facts which we have nothing to do with.

[jasonxxx102]

It's a sex offense regardless of age, that's the issue.

If you show your fun parts to anyone underage, you are liable to be charged as a sex offender. You know, every year, you have to report yourself to local law enforcement. Your neighbors will know exactly what you did. Your dwelling will be public knowledge. It isn’t just a sex offense. Google sex offenders, and your zip code and you will see what everyone has done. It might terrify you what you find.

If you do that to ANYONE. It is a sex offense. Not sure what your angle is here

[Xatticus]

The fact that he is a large, professional athlete is entirely irrelevant. It should be anyway, right? We know how these things actually go though. A black man wearing a hoodie doesn’t actually get treated just as everyone else does, but they certainly should, right?

You charge Primo for what he did, not because someone was afraid that he might do more because he was… ?

You literally don't understand how law works. By your idiotic logic, a punch to the head from a scrawny 12 year old is equivalent to the punch to the head from a 240 pound title holding boxer because they are both punches.

I'm not a huge fans of letting "less threatening" people get away with stuff like this either. I absolutely think a woman who made unwanted sexual gestures at a man she has power over should have the book thrown at her. And de jure or de facto, that often doesn't happen. That's a non-sequiter here. But as this thing evolves, it may become a theme. Folks should be open-minded in terms of what questions this will call up, independent of the facts which we have nothing to do with.

I had to report you. I don’t think it’s okay for you to go around calling people jures.

Edit: /greenfont (just in case)

[-Profanity-]

I said nothing of the sort. In fact, I've repeatedly said Primo should face punishment as well as repeatedly said exposing yourself without consent is a crime and is morally wrong. The only way you're reading something different is if you're not reading my posts.

Umm. This you?

Seeing genitalia is traumatic? Is he creating even more flashers by flashing innocent people? You know people watch porn, have sexual intercourse, attend things like Mardi Gras, the beach, nude beaches, etc, who exactly is traumatized because some skinny little teenager takes out his dick?

If you don't think that's you saying and showing that you don't understand then at this point I'm not sure what to tell you. You seem to be pushing the idea that your oppositional line of rationale in this thread is strictly for the idea of societal discourse while simultaneously not realizing that the societal discourse itself is the people here rejecting this behavior. The majority of us don't need to hear the context of the situation or have an edgy debate about the finer points of indecent exposure or when it may or may not be acceptable to expose yourself, we already reject it as being wrong.

What your posts actually read like is someone who's watched a lot of videos from the Joe Rogan hemisphere and wants to have a talk about how mainstream culture is too soft and cancel culture is too quick to reject people. That's a very legitimate point I'd agree with, but this is entirely the wrong time and place for it, which is why your posts come off as creepy to a lot of people who's reaction to this news is a very simple "yeah it's bad to expose yourself to a bunch of women no matter the context".

[DeBlazerRiddem]

I get the apples to oranges thing you are pointing out, but it's important to note that we charge people with what they actually do as opposed to another's fears of what they might do. If the latter were the case, there really wouldn't be many people free from incarceration.

You are improperly reframing the issue. We do charge based on the level of threat. The threat from a large professional athlete exposing himself to a woman in a room is different from a woman flashing her tits from her car at a Citgo (the example brought up).

The fact that he is a large, professional athlete is entirely irrelevant. It should be anyway, right? We know how these things actually go though. A black man wearing a hoodie doesn’t actually get treated just as everyone else does, but they certainly should, right?

You charge Primo for what he did, not because someone was afraid that he might do more because he was… ?

I think you two are mixing up the punishment from the law - which hasn't been determined if he even ends up getting charged with something - and punishment from the league, who absolutely can punish him extra for the position he holds and what they fear he might do in one of their lockerrooms or gyms or anywhere else. Basically the league as a private organization can expel him or punishment for whatever reasons they want, it is only the actual law that has to be blind to those other considerations.

[Michael Jordan]

I had a girlfriend few years back who told me a dude exposed himself to her while he was driving. I imagined it to be an old ugly guy with no game whatsoever when it came to woman.

Looking at this story I’m perplexed at how a promising young NBA player could be that mentally weak when it came to interacting with women. Just walking into a bar would be enough to get chicks around you dude.

Maybe they gotta add psychological testing at the draft combine

[Xatticus]

You are improperly reframing the issue. We do charge based on the level of threat. The threat from a large professional athlete exposing himself to a woman in a room is different from a woman flashing her tits from her car at a Citgo (the example brought up).

The fact that he is a large, professional athlete is entirely irrelevant. It should be anyway, right? We know how these things actually go though. A black man wearing a hoodie doesn’t actually get treated just as everyone else does, but they certainly should, right?

You charge Primo for what he did, not because someone was afraid that he might do more because he was… ?

I think you two are mixing up the punishment from the law - which hasn't been determined if he even ends up getting charged with something - and punishment from the league, who absolutely can punish him extra for the position he holds and what they fear he might do in one of their lockerrooms or gyms or anywhere else. Basically the league as a private organization can expel him or punishment for whatever reasons they want, it is only the actual law that has to be blind to those other considerations.

The league isn’t exactly free to do as it pleases though. Primo could absolutely file a lawsuit against the league if he feels he has been aggrieved. Roy Tarpley filed a suit against the NBA after he was banished for substance abuse, which was settled out of court.

[NZB2323]

I had a girlfriend few years back who told me a dude exposed himself to her while he was driving. I imagined it to be an old ugly guy with no game whatsoever when it came to woman.

Looking at this story I’m perplexed at how a promising young NBA player could be that mentally weak when it came to interacting with women. Just walking into a bar would be enough to get chicks around you dude.

Maybe they gotta add psychological testing at the draft combine

He exposed himself to the Spurs psychologist. Clearly something is wrong with him.

[lambchop]

I had a girlfriend few years back who told me a dude exposed himself to her while he was driving. I imagined it to be an old ugly guy with no game whatsoever when it came to woman.

Looking at this story I’m perplexed at how a promising young NBA player could be that mentally weak when it came to interacting with women. Just walking into a bar would be enough to get chicks around you dude.

Maybe they gotta add psychological testing at the draft combine

Not surprising at all and will probably continue to get worse. As for the psychological assessment at the combine, that couldn't even stop teams from drafting royce white although was essentially saying "hey, I probably won't be able to play."

[DoctorX]

I had a girlfriend few years back who told me a dude exposed himself to her while he was driving. I imagined it to be an old ugly guy with no game whatsoever when it came to woman.

Looking at this story I’m perplexed at how a promising young NBA player could be that mentally weak when it came to interacting with women. Just walking into a bar would be enough to get chicks around you dude.

Maybe they gotta add psychological testing at the draft combine

Spurs have a history of doing background checks on guys. I think even with psychological testing there are some guys who can talk a good game and come across as normal when in reality you won't realize they are abnormal until their actions show it. If you listen to Primo's interviews he looks very polished and not someone you would suspect capable of doing what he did. One of the reasons why the Spurs drafted him is allegedly they believed he had great character from all the research and background checks they had done on him prior to the draft.

[Ayt]

I had a girlfriend few years back who told me a dude exposed himself to her while he was driving. I imagined it to be an old ugly guy with no game whatsoever when it came to woman.

Looking at this story I’m perplexed at how a promising young NBA player could be that mentally weak when it came to interacting with women. Just walking into a bar would be enough to get chicks around you dude.

Maybe they gotta add psychological testing at the draft combine

You are right that Primo could easily get laid with almost no effort, which should indicate to you that it wasn't just about getting laid.

[G R E Y]

I had a girlfriend few years back who told me a dude exposed himself to her while he was driving. I imagined it to be an old ugly guy with no game whatsoever when it came to woman.

Looking at this story I’m perplexed at how a promising young NBA player could be that mentally weak when it came to interacting with women. Just walking into a bar would be enough to get chicks around you dude.

Maybe they gotta add psychological testing at the draft combine

He exposed himself to the Spurs psychologist. Clearly something is wrong with him.

I was wondering whether it was during an official capacity. The lawyer's statement about the press conference scheduled for Thursday morning states that "HIPPA restrictions will be observed" which to me hints at yes.

But it's also a very fine line that's being walked here. One of many, I suspect.

[HomoSapien]

I get the apples to oranges thing you are pointing out, but it's important to note that we charge people with what they actually do as opposed to another's fears of what they might do. If the latter were the case, there really wouldn't be many people free from incarceration.

Flashing your genitals without consent is considered legally to be indecent exposure. That's a crime and in most cases causes you to be registered as a sexual offender. I'm not sure what's difficult to understand about this.

Who has argued otherwise?

Frankly, it's been unclear what your argument is but the statement "it's important to note that we charge people with what they actually do as opposed to another's fear of what they might do" seems to be missing the point. When someone is registered as a sex offender, they literally join a registry which exists to specifically warn people of what the person on the registry might be capable of doing.

[heezyo2o]

I had a girlfriend few years back who told me a dude exposed himself to her while he was driving. I imagined it to be an old ugly guy with no game whatsoever when it came to woman.

Looking at this story I’m perplexed at how a promising young NBA player could be that mentally weak when it came to interacting with women. Just walking into a bar would be enough to get chicks around you dude.

Maybe they gotta add psychological testing at the draft combine

Lots of people could pass testing just fine and never have sexual kinks that come to light.

You mention an old GF, I think Primo just did this with an old GF or past girls who were okay with it then it just seemed normal to him and he thought he could do it with anyone.

[BlackThought]

Watch on YouTube

...Maybe uh...it needed some air. Sometimes they need air. They can't breath in there, it's inhuman.

[Invictus88]

My question was specifically why posters here insisted that being flashed automatically was a traumatic experience despite not actually knowing the context of the case.

You're acting purposely naive and contrarian in what I presume you to believe to be a noble attempt at defying groupthink.

But there is no point of discourse to be had here. There is no other way to interpret the situations. There is a clear perpetrator who intentfully committed the acts. There are clear victims who did not willfully want to be targeted that contacted authorities.

Your misguided attempts at trying to introduce context aren't bringing into question the validity of the majority opinion.

You aren't championing a new way of viewing the situation that somehow reveals some truth that only you and a select few can see.

The reality is much more mundane. The circumstances here are easy to comprehend by the many; resulting in a clear and near unanimous opinion denouncing the acts of Primo.

Your only accomplishment is establishing yourself as someone of pretty questionable judgement and a poor grasp of reality. Congratulations.

[G R E Y]

I guess we'll know more on Thursday, at least from the psychologist's POV, but given the HIPPA statement above, and it hinting that Primo saw her in a professional capacity, wasn't there some duty to warn scenario that was triggered?

I admittedly am not familiar with proper procedures in such cases. I understand duty to warn authorities is if a doctor knows of harm to self or others. Harm was clearly caused here though I'm not sure whether what Primo did falls within duty to warn.

So the whole HIPPA thing is, like I said, a very fine tricky line.

[Ballerhogger]

nobody has claimed him off waivers looks like his career is done.