fretgod99 Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 32 minutes ago, sp6488 said: Their post gave an example of claim 1, presenting a reductio ad absurdum argument to call into question those doubting the credibility of the accuser. What we are dealing with is claim 2, which is a much trickier proposition. There isn't doubt that she had photographed bruises (slash knife wounds in the post quoted), rather there are questions about the things that make claim 1 into claim 2 (who? why? when? - all of which is ignored in the hypothetical provided, focusing solely on the physical injuries component) that make the claim more difficult to prove/accept at face value as truth from a logical reasoning standpoint. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas5737 Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 57 minutes ago, fretgod99 said: 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? Well if the person making judgement isn't at the hearing and never met with the accuser then I'm not sure I would trust them whether they were a jury, judge or NFL commissioner. I understand he is taking the word of other people, investigators, other owners, the voices in his head and etc... into consideration and not making the judgement blind but in a case with this many variable known to the public you would have to expect backlash when the only real evidence is her claims that the injuries came from him. Normally that would probably be enough because why lie, but in this case she has supplied enough evidence to show that she has an agenda against him, which doesn't make him innocent but sways the probably of her story from very likely to a coin flip without any other evidence. I, know of no other evidence. Generally it is probably correct to just side with the person making the claims of DV because that is probably accurate at least 85% of the time. Specifically that is a careless thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Smithers Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 3 hours ago, fretgod99 said: 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? Except for one, a judge isn't facing pressure from numerous mishandled cases. Secondly, Goodell still suspended Junior Galette despite being proven innocent in a civil suit. So it's not exactly the same standard. Derrick Rose was declared innocent after allegations made against him even though the evidence against him was compelling (although it was a different crime being alleged here). You can't make the leap that a civil court would've made the same decision as the NFL did just because they go by similar standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soko Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 I may be ignorant to the exact wording of the rule/policy, but doesn't the NFL's "conduct detrimental to the league" clause basically mean "if you do something we don't like, we can punish you in an almost completely arbitrary fashion"? If that's the case, why are people debating this as if it's an actual civil/criminal case? Goodell and the NFL do, for the most part, whatever they want. Nothing new here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fretgod99 Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 31 minutes ago, Kip Smithers said: Except for one, a judge isn't facing pressure from numerous mishandled cases. Secondly, Goodell still suspended Junior Galette despite being proven innocent in a civil suit. So it's not exactly the same standard. Derrick Rose was declared innocent after allegations made against him even though the evidence against him was compelling (although it was a different crime being alleged here). You can't make the leap that a civil court would've made the same decision as the NFL did just because they go by similar standards. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Smithers Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 3 minutes ago, fretgod99 said: 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. What pressure? And if there is then it very likely pales in comparison to that of the NFL here. Ok they weren't declared innocent but they won their cases in a civil court. Point still stands. The burden of proof is silly for the NFL because for one we don't know if it's exactly the same as it would in a civil court. And like I said the NFL is under pressure. My point is that the NFL aren't the legal system. Which is whole other issue altogether. I'm not comfortable with the NFL tarnishing a reputation and declaring somebody guilty in the court of public opinion. For something as serious as this, more likely than not (particularly with this entity) is not something I like and agree with. And say for instance, Zeke's case goes to civil court and he wins that, how dumb does the NFL look then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sp6488 Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 3 hours ago, fretgod99 said: 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. But when you take it from "bruises present" to "abused" you are taking it from claim 1 to claim 2. I think it's fairly uncontroversial that she had bruises. There are photographs of that. Questions that are more difficult and are harder to support: When did they happen? How did they come to be (i.e. was it DV, a fight, etc.)? Who caused them? I feel like what I'm laying out here, that these additional questions, which rely solely on her testimony, are much more difficult to support vs. something for which there is simple, physical evidence of. I don't think anyone is debating the presence of bruising at some point that arose in some manner. I think where people are questioning claims, and where her credibility is of paramount importance, that rely on her testimony and are he-said-she-said in nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dome Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 Let's stick to football. We're really trying hard to keep the thread open but you guys are making it difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fretgod99 Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matts4313 Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 http://www.columbuscityattorney.org/pdf/press/2016070206 Investigation Documentation/2016070206 Public Records Documents.pdf Jesus.. this girl is straight psycho. There are literally testimonies that she was swimming in panties/bras after the "abuse" with no visible markings at all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D82 Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 26 minutes ago, Matts4313 said: http://www.columbuscityattorney.org/pdf/press/2016070206 Investigation Documentation/2016070206 Public Records Documents.pdf Jesus.. this girl is straight psycho. There are literally testimonies that she was swimming in panties/bras after the "abuse" with no visible markings at all... I mean...Zeke had texts from her stating she was out to ruin his career. Then she posts on Instagram the day after the "incident" asking her friends to lie for her. To me, that just about proves nothing happened and this is nothing more than a vendetta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dome Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 14 hours ago, domepatrol91 said: Let's stick to football. We're really trying hard to keep the thread open but you guys are making it difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Gently Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 https://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2017/8/31/16237788/nfl-lead-investigator-kia-wright-roberts-recommended-no-suspension-for-ezekiel-elliott The link is to a blog but there are stories from regular reporters linked in the artcle. Can you imagine a court case in which the star, non-hostile, witness for the defense is the lead prosecutorial investigator? This has gone into Bizarro world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cddolphin Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 Relevant for both this thread and the case itself: Quote "[T]he NFLPA and Elliott do not seek in this Petition for the Court to make its own determinations about Elliott’s or Thompson’s credibility, or any other matter of fact-finding properly left to the arbitrator,” the petition states. “Rather, the controlling and paramount legal question presented here is whether an arbitration concerning the existence of ‘credible evidence’ for employee discipline based on ‘he-said/she-said’ claims of domestic violence can be fundamentally fair when senior NFL Executives have conspired to obscure (including from the Commissioner and his advisors) their own Director of Investigations’ conclusion that there was no credible evidence upon which to impose discipline, and the arbitrator has refused to require the NFL to make available for testimony and cross-examination: (i) the accuser whose credibility is at issue (or the investigative notes of her six interviews), and (ii) the Commissioner who was deprived of critical facts in making his disciplinary determination” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dome Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 Let's try this one again. Remember to keep the talk limited to football, his suspension and the appeals process. This isn't a place to discuss your thoughts an domestic violence or your experiences with abuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.