Deshaun Watson is a Cleveland Brown

[Thomas5737]

28 minutes ago, Dawgpoun8017 said:

you cant go by claims alone, claims can get the procedure and investigating going and should be investigated but, you still need some evidence of proof to hold somebody accountable the case of Brian Banks is a good example of that.  also with eh burden of proof being so much lower in a civil case this is why you see so many people settle it even as they proclaim that they didn't do it, to make it go away, imo a civil case is much more likely to be swayed by the court of public opinion

So he shouldn't be suspended at all? There is a decent chance he is innocent and this was all made up? Who believes that?

[big poppa pump]

Even in a criminal case, people will plead guilty, knowing damn well that they are innocent.  If you are offered a plea deal that will give you probation, and 0 prison time, or take your chances at trial, and look at 20+ years in prison, even the most die-hard folks, who want to prove their innocence, are likely to cave in.  Innocent people are put in prison often enough, that one would have to really consider their options in certain scenarios.

In the case of civil suits, you absolutely are even more apt to settle.  I guess if money isn't an issue, then maybe you take your chances.  I don't think that even the super wealthy want to take those types of chances in court.

 

What we are talking about now is the "code of conduct" policy that the NFL has in place.  Although there has been a lot reported, there are definitely facts of the cases that aren't yet revealed.  Some have heard enough from what has been reported to formulate their decision on how they feel.  

 

[Thomas5737]

2 hours ago, big poppa pump said:

Even in a criminal case, people will plead guilty, knowing damn well that they are innocent.  If you are offered a plea deal that will give you probation, and 0 prison time, or take your chances at trial, and look at 20+ years in prison, even the most die-hard folks, who want to prove their innocence, are likely to cave in.  Innocent people are put in prison often enough, that one would have to really consider their options in certain scenarios.

In the case of civil suits, you absolutely are even more apt to settle.  I guess if money isn't an issue, then maybe you take your chances.  I don't think that even the super wealthy want to take those types of chances in court.

 

What we are talking about now is the "code of conduct" policy that the NFL has in place.  Although there has been a lot reported, there are definitely facts of the cases that aren't yet revealed.  Some have heard enough from what has been reported to formulate their decision on how they feel.  

 

If it was criminal mischief or vandalism or something like that sure. That's a lot different than being labeled a sexual predator though, I'm fighting that **** (excrement).

[candyman93]

 

[candyman93]

From what I’ve read, I’ve probably been wrong the whole time.

 

Maybe Watson really does only get 8 games. I thought it would be a full year.

 

Crazy.

[bruceb]

23 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

Well he paid for damages to the plaintiffs...

Man, you are out there.

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

6 hours ago, candyman93 said:

From what I’ve read, I’ve probably been wrong the whole time.

 

Maybe Watson really does only get 8 games. I thought it would be a full year.

 

Crazy.

I think he gets a year and it’s reduced to 8-10 games via appeal.

The league doesn’t want to look soft, but they also don’t want this to linger for another off-season imo.

[Thomas5737]

2 hours ago, bruceb said:

On 7/1/2022 at 7:35 PM, Thomas5737 said:

Well he paid for damages to the plaintiffs...

Man, you are out there.

How so? He was being sued for damages and reached a dollar amount settlement with the plaintiffs that satisfied them.

What am I missing?

[Dawgpoun8017]

11 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

How so? He was being sued for damages and reached a dollar amount settlement with the plaintiffs that satisfied them.

What am I missing?

Settlement does not equate to damages, damage’s are an amount awarded to a plaintiff by either the judge or jury after a verdict of guilty is rendered, a settlement is not an admission of guilt

[Thomas5737]

30 minutes ago, Dawgpoun8017 said:

Settlement does not equate to damages, damage’s are an amount awarded to a plaintiff by either the judge or jury after a verdict of guilty is rendered, a settlement is not an admission of guilt

Well from someone who vowed to clear his name... it's not clearing your name.

[MSURacerDT55]

19 hours ago, candyman93 said:

From what I’ve read, I’ve probably been wrong the whole time.

 

Maybe Watson really does only get 8 games. I thought it would be a full year.

 

Crazy.

That's what happens when you listen to the media, or biased opinions instead of the facts sitting right in front of you (not you). 

[MWil23]

I get what Thomas is saying about fighting tooth and nail to clear your name as opposed to settling, but honestly if I was innocent and presented with the opportunity to put this behind me for a minimum fee/no criminal record or admission of wrongdoing, I’d probably settle…or if I had a case, I’d countersue for defamation of character and slander. There wouldn’t be a middle ground there for me of going to trial with zero upside IMO.

[Thomas5737]

1 hour ago, MSURacerDT55 said:

That's what happens when you listen to the media, or biased opinions instead of the facts sitting right in front of you (not you). 

Facts being Watson's side of the story? He has never disrespected a woman in his life?

Just saying facts doesn't actually include any facts. What facts do you have that he is innocent? We're talking facts here, not holes in stories or that's unlikely because I would have reacted this way and a different person didn't so they are lying type of facts.

[Thomas5737]

Just now, MWil23 said:

I get what Thomas is saying about fighting tooth and nail to clear your name as opposed to settling, but honestly if I was innocent and presented with the opportunity to put this behind me for a minimum fee/no criminal record or admission of wrongdoing, I’d probably settle…or if I had a case, I’d countersue for defamation of character and slander. There wouldn’t be a middle ground there for me of going to trial with zero upside IMO.

Well I admit it is easier for Watson being a multimillionaire but if you had a national headline of a civil suit that you settled there is a decent chance that you will struggle to find employment in many fields, let alone quality relationships.

I know we're all different but I'm fighting anything that indicates violence or sexual misconduct against women, children or animals.

Now if Bob claims I punched him and chipped his tooth and it would cost me more to fight the battle than settle I would do it even if I were innocent. I don't care what people think about that and more importantly I don't care that my name is out there as a guy who punched another guy. Turn Bob into Alice and I'm not settling. That's just me. It certainly isn't Watson if he is innocent of all claims... which is pretty much in the same likelihood as Cosby and O.J. at this point.

[MWil23]

3 minutes ago, Thomas5737 said:

Well I admit it is easier for Watson being a multimillionaire but if you had a national headline of a civil suit that you settled there is a decent chance that you will struggle to find employment in many fields, let alone quality relationships.

I know we're all different but I'm fighting anything that indicates violence or sexual misconduct against women, children or animals.

Now if Bob claims I punched him and chipped his tooth and it would cost me more to fight the battle than settle I would do it even if I were innocent. I don't care what people think about that and more importantly I don't care that my name is out there as a guy who punched another guy. Turn Bob into Alice and I'm not settling. That's just me. It certainly isn't Watson if he is innocent of all claims... which is pretty much in the same likelihood as Cosby and O.J. at this point.

I’m talk about settling in general not necessarily the specifics, but then again I’ve always been monogamous and this is probably TMI but I’ve only ever been with my wife and we waited for marriage, so there’d be zero evidence against me and I’m fighting/counter suing as well in that instance. I’m speaking purely in a scenario where it’s he said/she said and a 50/50 civil scenario at best.