lancerman Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 4 minutes ago, fretgod99 said: You realize that the NFL isn't bound by the criminal burden of proof, right? The NFL is not obligated to demonstrate a fact's existence or event's occurrence beyond a reasonable doubt. There is unquestionably evidence that Elliott did what he is accused of. It is not sufficient to meet a criminal burden. For the NFL's purpose, the fact that the evidence is not sufficient to meet a criminal burden is 100% irrelevant. Yeah I do realize that. It doesn't mean they don't bear responsibility for the claims they made out of their investigations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phire Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 20 minutes ago, Jakuvious said: Soooooooooo....super smart lawyer people, who I'm sure are all equally right in their own way. Anyone have a guess on the odds Zeke plays on Sunday? Don't really care about the rest of the controversy. It's impossible to say really. The first question is whether the NFLPA/Zeke will even pursue an appeal. It sounds like they're at least threatening the possibility. There are risks to continuing to litigate; such as potentially losing Zeke for the playoffs assuming the Cowboys make it. Stated in other terms, if a suspension is upheld the timing of that suspension could be a lot worse depending on how things shake out. So as a preliminary matter, it really depends on the NFLPA/Zeke's litigation strategy and/or willingness to risk further litigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 1 minute ago, lancerman said: Yeah I do realize that. It doesn't mean they don't bear responsibility for the claims they made out of their investigations. What is this even supposed to mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakuvious Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 @Phire @jrry32 @mse326 Thanks for the responses. KC's run defense has been horrid this year, so Zeke's availability will be huge for the matchup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phire Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 2 minutes ago, jrry32 said: You can write opinions in a variety of ways. Generally, you introduce the arguments, cite the applicable case law, and then apply the facts to the case law. In this case, Mazzant combined the first and last step. There's nothing wrong with that, especially when you're working to get an opinion out quickly. It saves you from repeating yourself and is less formulaic. It's easy to see his reasoning behind it, and that reasoning is in line with the case law he cited. In my eyes, that's no worse than citing no case law whatsoever. This is objectively a bad legal opinion that does not make any attempt to discuss the legal precedent cited. Neither you nor I would put this in front of any judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 2 minutes ago, Phire said: This is objectively a bad legal opinion that does not make any attempt to discuss the legal precedent cited. Neither you nor I would put this in front of any judge. I think that's an easy stance to take when you've never been placed in a situation where you are time-crunched and have to get an order out. I thankfully can say that I have not been put in that situation, but I have seen it firsthand. And you do what you have to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phire Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 5 minutes ago, lancerman said: Yeah I do realize that. It doesn't mean they don't bear responsibility for the claims they made out of their investigations. I mean, essentially, the State of Ohio said there was evidence, but just not enough consistent evidence to justify bringing charges (as the prosecution would have a hard time convincing a jury beyond a reasonable doubt). The NFL said the same thing except that they found that within that inconsistent evidence, there was enough evidence to justify a suspension. He isn't going to jail. So really, they didn't say anything new or different. They took the same set of facts, but with a different threshold for punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fretgod99 Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 7 minutes ago, lancerman said: Yeah I do realize that. It doesn't mean they don't bear responsibility for the claims they made out of their investigations. What responsibility to they have? Can you prove any potential harm to his reputation is due to the NFL's actions as opposed to the existence of the claims themselves? Also, harm to one's reputation is generally the type of thing which is compensated by handing over a pile of money. Again, this makes it definitively not irreparable. So, your assertion that this is could even be the basis for a claim of irreparable harm is baseless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 Just now, Phire said: I mean, essentially, the State of Ohio said there was evidence, but just not enough consistent evidence to justify bringing charges (as the prosecution would have a hard time convincing a jury beyond a reasonable doubt). The NFL said the same thing except that they found that within that inconsistent evidence, there was enough evidence to justify a suspension. He isn't going to jail. So really, they didn't say anything new or different. They took the same set of facts, but with a different threshold for punishment. There's evidence in every legal matter. Some aren't enough to justify bringing charges, some aren't enough to justify a conviction. Evidence doesn't mean he did something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas5737 Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 Zeke could play the retirement card. Say he can't accept a penalty that represents him as a guilty domestic partner abuser. Make contact with the Canadian football league or something like and see what happens. If he is innocent maybe even follow through with it. He'll lose a lot of money but he'll still make a good bit and while he may lose the battle he may become a folk hero and most seem to remember those that they never seen become mortal in a higher regard. He won't ever be in the best ever debate but he may get mentions in a shoulda coulda woulda fashion. If he is guilty, just take the punishment when they call your bluff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phire Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 4 minutes ago, jrry32 said: I think that's an easy stance to take when you've never been placed in a situation where you are time-crunched and have to get an order out. I thankfully can say that I have not been put in that situation, but I have seen it firsthand. And you do what you have to do. How do you know I've never been time crunched? And considering he spent 7 pages on substantial likelihood of success... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 Just now, fretgod99 said: What responsibility to they have? Can you prove any potential harm to his reputation is due to the NFL's actions as opposed to the existence of the claims themselves? Also, harm to one's reputation is generally the type of thing which is compensated by handing over a pile of money. Again, this makes it definitively not irreparable. So, your assertion that this is could even be the basis for a claim of irreparable harm is baseless. You think it would be hard to prove that sitting out 6 games for domestic violence on the most watched television show in the country had more of an impact than an allegation that happened before he was in the league? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phire Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 2 minutes ago, lancerman said: There's evidence in every legal matter. Some aren't enough to justify bringing charges, some aren't enough to justify a conviction. Evidence doesn't mean he did something. What Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phire Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 19 minutes ago, Phire said: OK let's play that game. What endorsement has Zeke lost? @lancerman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fretgod99 Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 1 minute ago, lancerman said: There's evidence in every legal matter. Some aren't enough to justify bringing charges, some aren't enough to justify a conviction. Evidence doesn't mean he did something. What's the burden of proof? If it's beyond a reasonable doubt, then no. Is it clear and convincing? Maybe, maybe not. Is it a preponderance of the evidence? There's probably a fair shot he could be found responsible (meaning legally he did it). For the NFL's standard, he was determined to be responsible. Saying there isn't enough evidence to support he did it is a meaningless statement without first establishing the burden of proof. You're claiming he can't have done it because there's insufficient evidence to meet the criminal burden. Again, the criminal burden is irrelevant. So that there isn't enough evidence to justify a conviction doesn't matter in the slightest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.