Jump to content

Zeke Elliott TRO granted


incognito_man

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, DalCowboyzRule said:

You know what I hate? When the NFL suspends innocent players.

Why in the world would you be so certain of his innocence? This whole thing is a giant cluster amd no one should be saying theyre certain of his guilt/innocence. Even in the best possible outcome for him, people will realize hes a dbag Worst case and youre the guy staunchly defending a giant pos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to read anything in this thread. I'm just going to say another year, another protracted legal battle. No other sports league has this problem and they've all cracked down in the same way as the NFL. It's not the players. It's the process and the people in charge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RuskieTitan said:

How would you propose we go about determining it otherwise?

Didn't say we should do it some other way.  I was responding to a post that said a court declared Elliot innocent.  They didn't declare any way because it never went to a court.  That doesn't mean he did or didn't do it.  Maybe he did, maybe he didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RuskieTitan said:

How would you propose we go about determining it otherwise?

There's not always a way to determine whether he was guilty or not. 

 Even if it did go to court, barring that he fails to cooperates in any way.....chances are the case gets dismissed anyhow - guilty or not. Prosecutors are usually pretty lenient on first-time offenders(depending on the case, priors, etc). They would rather take steps to prevent it from happening again by getting the defendant some help before the case even gets a sentencing date instead of just locking him up or charging him outright because of the serious damages that a DV charge can have on a persons record. Especially someone as young as Zeke.

So instead of charging him they could say "okay, here are the conditions of your TPO that can be modified if the victim shows up to the next court a date and agrees to it. You also have to attend 20 sessions of [insert name of DV group class], in which during this time you have to take and pass a drug/alcohol test every week. If you do this without any further incidents then the prosecutor will consider putting the case on a 1 or 2 year [insert technical term - which is different in every city that offers this] meaning that the charges will be dismissed just as long as there are no more similar charges within this period". 

Now of course, legally if the charges are dismissed he is innocent, as far court records are concerned, but that doesn't mean that nothing happened at all or that he wasn't guilty. Just that he wasn't found guilty.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, GSUeagles14 said:

Why in the world would you be so certain of his innocence? This whole thing is a giant cluster amd no one should be saying theyre certain of his guilt/innocence. Even in the best possible outcome for him, people will realize hes a dbag Worst case and youre the guy staunchly defending a giant pos.

Because the police and the NFL's own investigator both said there wasn't any credible evidence against him

Why is that so hard to understand?

Judge Mazzant REALLY ripped the NFL a new on this one, too.

Mazzant's Opinion

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...