Calvert28 Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 On 11/13/2017 at 10:42 AM, Superman(DH23) said: You are missing the point. Prosecutors have the discretion to not take a case to trial bc they feel evidence is insufficient to meet the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. This essentially means absolute certainty, which is and should b required to deprive somebody of liberty and life, but merely getting into somebodys pocketbook doesnt require that same standard of evidence nor should it. Instead of absolute certainty it only requires a belief that it is more likely than not. To continue your oj analogy, prosecutors were unable to eatablish beyond a reasonable doubt. The families then took the case to civil court and were able to meet the preponderance of evidence standard and were awarded financial compensation as a result. You are asking that the nfl be required to uphold the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, which is preposterous bc they are not trying to deprive elliot of life or liberty merely reaching into his pocketbook. They met the standard of evidence that is required for civil statutes. It was never worth fighting bc elliot was never going to win No I got your point. That Goodell does not need a legitimate excuse to punish someone and he was "supposedly" within his rights to do what he wants. That much BS has been thrown to the media and sheepish fans to actually paint the image that he is on the side of right. But it's exactly that type of BS is whats destroying the NFL, that whole fiasco at some point stopped being about trying to repair the image of the NFL as it was to just flex it's muscles. And really? You don't think it should require evidence to actually serve a suspension. It might help them actually avoid some bad publicity by staying consistent and acting on facts rather then headlines which they are still trying to dig themselves out of, by being overly harsh on cases but not on others. Making sham public appreciations like this military month when they were having to be paid to do it before. And I never said beyond a reasonable doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvert28 Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 On 11/13/2017 at 11:10 AM, ramssuperbowl99 said: I'll venture a wild guess and say this wasn't the first time this has been explained to him and he'll ignore it or change the subject because he just doesn't want Zeke to be suspended. Yea because nobody ever argues about a bad decision or holds a grudge on it. Just legit deals like moving a franchise from one underwhelming market place to a major one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 12 minutes ago, Calvert28 said: On 11/13/2017 at 1:10 PM, ramssuperbowl99 said: I'll venture a wild guess and say this wasn't the first time this has been explained to him and he'll ignore it or change the subject because he just doesn't want Zeke to be suspended. Yea because nobody ever argues about a bad decision or holds a grudge on it. Just legit deals like moving a franchise from one underwhelming market place to a major one. And "change the subject" it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvert28 Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 1 minute ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: And "change the subject" it is. Might want to reread my reply to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammymvpknight Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 Hate Jurrah...hate the NFL even more. Don’t care about the arguments and legalities...I hope the NFL loses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fretgod99 Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 3 hours ago, Calvert28 said: And really? You don't think it should require evidence to actually serve a suspension. They had evidence. That it wasn't sufficient to convince you is ultimately irrelevant. That's ultimately his point here. Saying there is no evidence is patently incorrect. What you mean is there wasn't enough evidence, and specifically there wasn't enough evidence to convince you. Again, that doesn't matter. If there truly was no evidence of anything, there wouldn't have been much if any investigation by anybody, let alone the NFL. That's not the case. Clearly there was evidence. And it apparently was sufficient to demonstrate to a number of people (whose opinions on the subject are relevant) that Elliott did something problematic, even if it isn't enough to support criminally sanctioning him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvert28 Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 53 minutes ago, fretgod99 said: They had evidence. That it wasn't sufficient to convince you is ultimately irrelevant. That's ultimately his point here. Saying there is no evidence is patently incorrect. What you mean is there wasn't enough evidence, and specifically there wasn't enough evidence to convince you. Again, that doesn't matter. If there truly was no evidence of anything, there wouldn't have been much if any investigation by anybody, let alone the NFL. That's not the case. Clearly there was evidence. And it apparently was sufficient to demonstrate to a number of people (whose opinions on the subject are relevant) that Elliott did something problematic, even if it isn't enough to support criminally sanctioning him. Left out the word sufficient before evidence when I wrote it. Sue me. As for relevant opinions, im willing to bet there are more people who found this whole thing BS then who actually side with Goodell. The NFLPA has already sent out word this entire thing was a sham. Then his point then would be way off base of what I have been arguing, and might as well have said the entire point of FootballsFuture is pointless considering what we think of a officiating call would be irrelevant considering the refs do not answer to us. Yet we have many topics on close games and officials that affected those games. Or poor coaching decisions, or league announcements in general. Cause who on this site has any sort of weight with the NFL? Yea....try again it's a discussion. What I am trying to wrap my head around is why you guys think this is perfectly A ok. A decision like this means an accusation can now be considered a smoking gun. Fingerprints optional, not necessary. This puts anyone in the league at risk, and leaves the door open for far more ludicrous punishments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 39 minutes ago, Calvert28 said: What I am trying to wrap my head around is why you guys think this is perfectly A ok. A decision like this means an accusation can now be considered a smoking gun. Fingerprints optional, not necessary. This puts anyone in the league at risk, and leaves the door open for far more ludicrous punishments. There are around 2000 NFL players at any given moment - and about 1,925 of them manage to pull it off without getting into trouble This isn't a court of law, its an entertainment business that depends on having a pristine image. When they collectively bargained the CBA deal to split up the billions, there was a code of conduct attached to it Any conduct that is detrimental to the goals of the league( $$$) are punishable, including just the strong perception of wrong-doing. There's one set of rules for the court of law and another for the court of public opinion. You can certainly complain about the fairness of that - but they are very well compensated for meeting that standard. Advertisers are paying for a certain image and the vast majority of players are able to meet that standard. Others, like Zeke have not. The league is heavily courting the female demographic and yet there are viral video's of Zeke pulling down a woman's shirt. That's not helping the League's efforts. The NFL isn't all about image because they are a bunch of saints, they're all about image because its their gravy train. That's why the league was willing to invest multi-millions in legal fees to go after Brady and Elliot. Their lack of innocence threatened the owners gravy train, so the owners (via Goodell) gave the players some time off to re-evaluate their priorities Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 7 hours ago, fretgod99 said: They had evidence. That it wasn't sufficient to convince you is ultimately irrelevant. That's ultimately his point here. Saying there is no evidence is patently incorrect. What you mean is there wasn't enough evidence, and specifically there wasn't enough evidence to convince you. Again, that doesn't matter. If there truly was no evidence of anything, there wouldn't have been much if any investigation by anybody, let alone the NFL. That's not the case. Clearly there was evidence. And it apparently was sufficient to demonstrate to a number of people (whose opinions on the subject are relevant) that Elliott did something problematic, even if it isn't enough to support criminally sanctioning him. The problem is the NFL process when ever it is revealed always comes off as one sided. In the Elliot cases the one person who actually talked to the victim said he shouldn't be suspended..in the Brady case there were multiple cross roads where you had to make ignore a reasonable explanation like which gauge which was used or the ideal gas law principle or assume something malicious and the NFL just kept going in the direction that led to the outcome they wanted. Its difficult to objectively believe they are going through a fair process to make decision and multiple judges have said that. The issue is they have the right to have a one sided process as long they don't ignore proper procedure per the CBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matts4313 Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 I love Jerry. Quote "I'm gonna come after you with everything I have," Jones said. Then he mentioned Deflategate. "If you think Bob Kraft came after you hard, Bob Kraft is a p---y compared to what I'm going to do." http://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/21441056/nfl-commissioner-roger-goodell-bitter-battle-saw-coming-led-dallas-cowboys-owner-jerry-jones Go effing get him Jerry! All us Goodell haters have your back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatriotsWin! Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 ^^^maybe Jones should have supported Kraft during his fight with the NFL. Instead he empowered the NFL by telling Kraft to back down for the good of the league. Very hypocritical of him to now say Kraft was a pu--sy. Guess people dont care about injustices until it happens to their team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DigInBoys Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 39 minutes ago, PatriotsWin! said: ^^^maybe Jones should have supported Kraft during his fight with the NFL. Instead he empowered the NFL by telling Kraft to back down for the good of the league. Very hypocritical of him to now say Kraft was a pu--sy. Guess people dont care about injustices until it happens to their team. No good sides here. Pun not intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superman(DH23) Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 18 hours ago, Calvert28 said: Left out the word sufficient before evidence when I wrote it. Sue me. As for relevant opinions, im willing to bet there are more people who found this whole thing BS then who actually side with Goodell. The NFLPA has already sent out word this entire thing was a sham. Then his point then would be way off base of what I have been arguing, and might as well have said the entire point of FootballsFuture is pointless considering what we think of a officiating call would be irrelevant considering the refs do not answer to us. Yet we have many topics on close games and officials that affected those games. Or poor coaching decisions, or league announcements in general. Cause who on this site has any sort of weight with the NFL? Yea....try again it's a discussion. What I am trying to wrap my head around is why you guys think this is perfectly A ok. A decision like this means an accusation can now be considered a smoking gun. Fingerprints optional, not necessary. This puts anyone in the league at risk, and leaves the door open for far more ludicrous punishments. The problem is your definition of sufficient is different than the legal definition of sufficient. You want a beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Again that is ludicrous bc there is no deprivation of life or liberty. The preponderance of evidence standard is perfectly sufficient here and has been met. And again this wasnt Goddell acting of his own accord. The nfl hired an independent team of investigators including former fbi agents, asst us attorneys and medical forensic experts who advised that it was more likely than not that the alleged abuse occurred. Goddell then enacted the exact punishment that the league and the nflpa agreed upon for first time offenders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt79511 Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 8 hours ago, Matts4313 said: I love Jerry. http://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/21441056/nfl-commissioner-roger-goodell-bitter-battle-saw-coming-led-dallas-cowboys-owner-jerry-jones Go effing get him Jerry! All us Goodell haters have your back. At the October 2016 meetings in Houston, the league was, as usual, enduring crisis. The NFL had recently suspended Giants kicker Josh Brown for only one game after domestic assault allegations, which made it appear that Goodell had not learned the hard lessons from the Ray Rice debacle. "The New York Daily News" had obtained incriminating evidence from Washington state law enforcement authorities that Friel, with her multimillion-dollar budget, had failed to gather. It all came to a head at the meetings. (The NFL would retroactively suspend Brown for six games the following season; the entire public relations mess was exactly what Jones and other owners and executives feared and predicted could occur from the beginning.) Lisa Friel, everyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
///mcompact Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 4 minutes ago, matt79511 said: Lisa Friel, everyone It’s almost like she’s a long-time season ticket holder of a certain team or something.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.