According to Sue Robinson’s findings, it’s hard to feel that Deshaun Watson’s behavior was “non-violent.”

Imagine you are at an ATM near your home. You’re going to your niece’s graduation party and you want to put some cash on her card. As soon as you leave the bank lobby door and re-emerge onto the sidewalk, you are approached by a larger, imposing person demanding the money you just withdrew.

You comply and they run. Your heart is pounding in your ears, your hands are shaking.

The police find the robber, and when the robber is in front of a judge, you find out that not only are they unrepentant, but they did the same thing to at least seven other people in the days before and after your robbery.

The judge acknowledges that the crimes were committed, he even says that they believe the robber will do the same thing again. But since they never harmed you with a gun or punches and only threatened you verbally, the punishment will be five hours of unsupervised community service.

You’d be furious, right? After all, you may not have been physically hurt, but the mental and emotional damage has meant weeks of intense nightmares and even months later you’re afraid to walk around your once-comfortable neighborhood.

That, in a nutshell, was what independent arbitrator Sue L. Robinson told Cleveland Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson’s accusers in her ruling released Monday, in which she wrote that yes, Watson committed sexual assault, but in her judgment it was “ non-violent”.

Much of her 16-page decision — which was limited, Robinson wrote, to the four massage therapists whose testimony was included in the NFL’s investigative report, rather than the 24 women who filed civil lawsuits — was silly. But apparently for Robinson, since there were no rape kits, no bruises, and no torn underwear in an evidence file, then the mental and emotional trauma suffered by the accusers was apparently not worth considering in sentencing Watson.

Of the four women the NFL brought forward to make its case during the hearing, one said she needed treatment after her date with Watson and is “struggling to work”, according to the ruling. Another said she struggled with depression and insomnia because of what she claims Watson did to her. Another is considering giving up massage therapy altogether.

Isn’t that violent?

Deshaun Watson's behavior was determined to be

Deshaun Watson’s conduct was determined to be “non-violent” by independent referee Sue Robinson. Let’s spend some time with it. (AP Photo/David Dermer, File)

Ashley Solis, the first woman to file a lawsuit against Watson, has gone on the record numerous times alleging Watson’s sexually inappropriate and unwanted behavior during their dates. Two years after her interaction with Watson, the memory still brings tears to her eyes, as evidenced by her interview with Soledad O’Brien on HBO’s “Real Sports with Brian Gabel” that aired in May.

Isn’t that violent?

Since Robinson’s decision gives the impression that she was wedded to the letter of the personal conduct policy rather than its spirit, perhaps she should look up the definition of “violent” because it’s not as narrow as she thinks. Violence can be in effect or effect. The effect Watson’s behavior had on Solis and these other women was violent.

Sexual assault no more requires the physical violence that Robinson seems to think it requires than racism requires the n-word and white hoods. Both can hurt and cause permanent scarring without any physical interaction — and in Watson’s case, there it was reportedly the same, with some women accusing him of touching them with his penis or ejaculating on them or forcing them to perform oral sex. Sexual assault is consensual. These women did not approve of Watson’s behavior.

Robinson’s words may have many long-term implications, some of them good, but right now they serve to highlight that too many people still don’t have a good enough understanding of what sexual violence is, including former federal judges.

And they also highlight to many of us, once again, how some people, even other women, perceive women as disposable, especially if they’re black or brown or in the service industry.

Robinson wrote that she believed the NFL’s claim that Watson “had a sexual purpose — not just a therapeutic purpose — in making these arrangements.”

He wrote that Watson knew that “the intercourse was undesirable.”

He wrote that Watson had committed sexual assault as defined by the NFL.

He wrote that Watson still shows no remorse, acted with “reckless disregard for consequences” and that his pattern of conduct is “more egregious than any previously assessed by the NFL.”

He believes Watson is such a risk that he wants, for the rest of his career, to only get massages through his team or a team-approved therapist.

To some of us, that sounds like a predator, someone who knows what they’re doing is wrong, is doing it anyway, and could do it again in the future.

And yet, given all that, Robinson gave Watson what amounts to a slap on the wrist.

His not throwing in it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.