fretgod99

Bruises present to abused is like cuts present to stabbed, which is the what you earlier established as claim 1. Regardless, we're getting far afield.

Wait 20 minutes, eat more. This isn't difficult, Des. Step your game up, man.

False. Such a concept does not exist.

Judges do sometimes feel that pressure. Galette wasn't proven innocent. Rose wasn't declared innocent. That's not how the law works. Those of us in the legal profession are well aware of the fickleness of juries (no two are alike and you honestly rarely know what's going to happen when you submit a case to one). I never said a jury or judge in a civil trial would come to the same decision as the NFL; I simply said the complaint about the burden of proof is silly because, frankly, it is.

Uh ... dear sweet jebus that looks awful!

And people are also rejecting her claim with regard to how the injuries occurred (claim 1). People aren't saying, "Yes, we all agree she was abused, we just disagree it was the person she claims it was". There are a number of people claiming she wasn't even abused. That's what I'm getting at. If you believe her claim 1 with regard to an initial burden of production, then why do we all of a sudden discount her credibility with regard to claim 2 with regard to an initial burden of production. The case isn't over at that point, but that's not the aspect we're discussing.

I don't read the post you're responding to that way, but I'll let that person speak for themself.

You're presuming someone less qualified is making the decision. Again, juries decide civil cases all. the. time. They are literally lay people with no requisite qualifications. What standard of proof would you prefer? And recognize that you would still have the same apparently unqualified person making that determination, so how does the burden of proof fix anything in your eyes?

You'll take the victim's word at how the injuries occurred, but not at who caused them? Note, this isn't advocating there's no verification or follow-up. Just saying, you're fine assuming a person is telling you the truth that they were stabbed, but as soon as they say, "I was stabbed by that guy", you're now skeptical?

By design, homes. Still counts. All glory to the Hypnotoad.

1. I understand how the court system works, but thank you for your explanation. 2. Are you assuming Goodell just decided on a whim? There's a reason he has a group of people advise him after conducting the investigation. 3. This is largely irrelevant. The issue I was commenting on was the dislike of the standard of proof used.

Eh, it's not that bad. Granted, my kids are incredibly awesome, so...you know, results may vary. To be fair, if you were my kid, I'd probably want to die in a fire. (Ooo! Burn!) ((Meta joke))

You know civil suits can and do have juries too, right? And it's not like the NFL used random people off the street to analyze what happened here.

That's not the purpose of this study. This wasn't designed to assess risk. Critiquing something for not doing what it wasn't designed to do doesn't make much sense. It clearly demonstrates the existence of a problem. It further demonstrates that the problem cannot be ignored. It helps generate support (moral, financial, and otherwise) to further study the problem and the various issues associated with it (such as risk, mitigation, etc.).

That's not the point. I understand that's this isn't a guilty or no guilty scenario but you can't be naive to think that in the court of public opinion and in terms reputation the conclusion would be reached that he did what he is accused of. Yes legally, he's not guilty. And even in a civil suit you can't predict that the same result would've been drawn. We're talking about the NFL here. No, that is the point. You don't like "more likely than not" as a standard for the NFL's determination due to potential impact on his reputation, but why not? That's precisely the same standard that would be used in a civil suit and that civil suit would have the exact same impact on his reputation. So why object in one but not the other? Why should the NFL be held to a higher standard in a relatively equivalent setting?