• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

326 Excellent

About davearm

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Recent Profile Visitors

3,115 profile views
  1. I don't know what more I can say. You have demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the criminal justice system. I have tried to illuminate and correct your misconceptions, but you don't seem to be listening.
  2. I don't have specific knowledge of the Elliott case. I'm speaking in general terms. And what I'm telling you is that very often, investigators believe a crime has been committed, the accused is guilty, yet the DA chooses not to file charges, because their high burden of proof can't be met (for any number of reasons). Is Elliott one such person that's actually guilty but not charged? I don't know. I'm not assuming he is or isn't. My point is, you shouldn't assume (as you have done) that he is innocent because no charges were filed, and you definitely should not assume that no charges means that investigators think no crime was committed.
  3. Look, the post I was first replying to was the one in which you said since no charged were filed, "the crime (did) not even take place in the eyes of the investigators". That's just flat out wrong and belies an ignorance of the whole process. In all likelihood, the criminal investigators probably believe that Elliott *did* commit a crime.
  4. My thought is that beween Rawls, Lacy, Prosise, McKissic, and None of the Above, Prosise has maybe a 1/5 chance of becoming startable, and probably less than that.
  5. You can go back to my first reply to you to see my point: you're wrong to suggest no charges filed = not guilty. People that have committed crimes avoid being charged every day.
  6. Nothing you just said supports a conclusion that Elliott is not guilty of domestic violence. Only that the legal standard of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt cannot be met.
  7. Your Jones anecdote seems to suggest this entire exercise is misguided.
  8. This post isn't remotely accurate. Every day, prosecutors decide not to press charges in cases where they are 100% convinced a crime was committed. Literally every day. The only thing that matters is what they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, not what they think happened. So not being charged is not at all equivalent to being considered not guilty.
  9. I don't see post numbers. Look for posts by lod, or replies to posts by lod. Virtually all are of the "I'm right, you're wrong" chest pounding and name calling variety. Childish. I'm happy to see @joebryant try and put the kibosh on it, but he only chastised one of the guilty parties.
  10. You think that's the play that landed him on the bench? Strange.
  11. The carry I saw, Mack tried to bounce outside instead of taking what was blocked, and wound up losing 4 yards. I'd imagine that kind of thing could get him in Pagano's doghouse.
  12. Opinions vary. I see a number of posters acting childishly in this thread. You and lod are tied for the lead though.
  13. The (very small) number of players impacted obviously impacts how important the issue is to the union. Not sure how you can suggest otherwise.
  14. The en banc hearing is a hail mary that will almost certainly fall incomplete. New York precedent is pretty clearly established. This is a question of when, not if Elliott runs out of legal maneuvers. Meanwhile the NFL considers him suspended as of now.