Adrian Peterson's turn to get the boot from the NFL (1 Viewer)

[Koya]

Who got to Chris Carter? That was Bill Polian redux.

And why has the Polian debacle gotten so little attention? Yeesh.

 

[bigbottom]

I think it's unlikely that Peterson gets convicted, because:

1. He's a famous celebrity.

2. The jury is in Texas.

3. A lot of people seem to be OK with this kind of "discipline".

4. Peterson has hired an expert, expensive attorney.

5. Peterson's attorney will turn this into a debate about corporal punishment.

Using history as my judge, Peterson will be found not guilty. It's up to the NFL and the Vikings to punish him. The Vikings have wimped out. Now it's up to the NFL.

I don't know. He's still a black man in East Texas.

He's a black feller in east Texas that played for Oklahoma and has hired an expensive out of state lawyer to try confuse matters. Also, his behavior could make them all lose their right to corporal punishment if they are not careful.

Montgomery County is essentially a Houston suburb (generally not considered East Texas) and AP's lawyer is a well-known Houstonian.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Who got to Chris Carter? That was Bill Polian redux.

And why has the Polian debacle gotten so little attention? Yeesh.

I am not even sure what the Polian Debacle is...

 

[Limp Ditka]

Who got to Chris Carter? That was Bill Polian redux.

And why has the Polian debacle gotten so little attention? Yeesh.

I am not even sure what the Polian Debacle is...

It's all on Deadspin

 

[Sinn Fein]

Who got to Chris Carter? That was Bill Polian redux.

And why has the Polian debacle gotten so little attention? Yeesh.

I am not even sure what the Polian Debacle is...

It's all on Deadspin

Something recent or old?

 

[Sinn Fein]

The espn interview - where he was the mouthpiece for the NFL?

Can't be bothered - I don't trust many media sources, so I assume that every talking head/media outlet/news organization has an agenda - its been a long time since the media acted as anything other than a mouthpiece for others.

 

[Limp Ditka]

Who got to Chris Carter? That was Bill Polian redux.

And why has the Polian debacle gotten so little attention? Yeesh.

I am not even sure what the Polian Debacle is...

It's all on Deadspin

Something recent or old?

Day or two after the Rice elevator story broke.

Interviewed about it once, said something about it

Interviewed about it again, about 2-3 hours later, basically said the complete opposite.

Pretty obvious NFL spin doctors got on the ESPN bat phone and read them the riot act.

 

[Limp Ditka]

I'd link, but on phone.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I'd link, but on phone.

I found it - my response above.

An independent media/news organization is a thing of the past. Not shocked that it happened, not shocked that it is not a story anywhere else.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Who got to Chris Carter? That was Bill Polian redux.

And why has the Polian debacle gotten so little attention? Yeesh.

I am not even sure what the Polian Debacle is...

It's all on Deadspin

Something recent or old?

Day or two after the Rice elevator story broke.

Interviewed about it once, said something about it

Interviewed about it again, about 2-3 hours later, basically said the complete opposite.

Pretty obvious NFL spin doctors got on the ESPN bat phone and read them the riot act.

link

 

[Sinn Fein]

I assume Carter was on Mike & Mike this morning? I turned it off this morning during the Jim Turner interview....

What is his take?

 

[Disco Stu]

I assume Carter was on Mike & Mike this morning? I turned it off this morning during the Jim Turner interview....

What is his take?

What ever it was, I'm sure it was very loud.

 

[timschochet]

Do you agree with Vikings Decision to reinstate Adrian Peterson?

Yes - 63%

No - 37%

(Total votes: 355,983)

Its time to move on people. Find your next faux outrage cause celebre

doesnt seem like a very scientific poll. Anyhow, the majority is dead wrong.

 

[dgreen]

Do you agree with Vikings Decision to reinstate Adrian Peterson?

Yes - 63%

No - 37%

(Total votes: 355,983)

Its time to move on people. Find your next faux outrage cause celebre

doesnt seem like a very scientific poll.

You're basing this just on the above post? Or do you have other info into the methodology?

 

[timschochet]

Do you agree with Vikings Decision to reinstate Adrian Peterson?

Yes - 63%

No - 37%

(Total votes: 355,983)

Its time to move on people. Find your next faux outrage cause celebre

doesnt seem like a very scientific poll.

You're basing this just on the above post? Or do you have other info into the methodology?

you can tell by the number of votes. Real polls ask 1,000 people or less . This is an internet poll .

 

[dgreen]

Do you agree with Vikings Decision to reinstate Adrian Peterson?

Yes - 63%

No - 37%

(Total votes: 355,983)

Its time to move on people. Find your next faux outrage cause celebre

doesnt seem like a very scientific poll.

You're basing this just on the above post? Or do you have other info into the methodology?

you can tell by the number of votes. Real polls ask 1,000 people or less . This is an internet poll .

True. And probably on ESPN.com or some other sports site?

I think a true random sample survey of the US population would a good mix of Yes, No, and Who? responses.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Do you agree with Vikings Decision to reinstate Adrian Peterson?

Yes - 63%

No - 37%

(Total votes: 355,983)

Its time to move on people. Find your next faux outrage cause celebre

doesnt seem like a very scientific poll.

You're basing this just on the above post? Or do you have other info into the methodology?

you can tell by the number of votes. Real polls ask 1,000 people or less . This is an internet poll .

I'd say that it is a pretty good gauge of overall public sentiment - even if it is not "scientific" - when you look at the results by state - you get a sense that it is accurate - only states leaning against Peterson are in the northeast - typical liberal bias...in Texas, it was 70/30 split in his favor = no conviction.

 

[Plorfu]

Do you agree with Vikings Decision to reinstate Adrian Peterson?

Yes - 63%

No - 37%

(Total votes: 355,983)

Its time to move on people. Find your next faux outrage cause celebre

doesnt seem like a very scientific poll.

Not true. I voted 35,000 times and I had to use the computer and the internet, two things that were invented by science.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Do you agree with Vikings Decision to reinstate Adrian Peterson?

Yes - 63%

No - 37%

(Total votes: 355,983)

Its time to move on people. Find your next faux outrage cause celebre

doesnt seem like a very scientific poll.

You're basing this just on the above post? Or do you have other info into the methodology?

you can tell by the number of votes. Real polls ask 1,000 people or less . This is an internet poll .

I'd say that it is a pretty good gauge of overall public sentiment - even if it is not "scientific" - when you look at the results by state - you get a sense that it is accurate - only states leaning against Peterson are in the northeast - typical liberal bias...in Texas, it was 70/30 split in his favor = no conviction.

Yeah, nothing gauges public sentiment like an internet poll on a sports web site. I'm sure that's an accurate reflection of the views of the public as a whole.

Also I don't think you know how the justice system works.

 

[gianmarco]

I wish someone would stuff leaves in Tim's mouth and beat him bloody.

Actually, I think most here would settle for just tucking the leaves in between his fingers to disable any attempt at typing. No need to bloody up anything.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Do you agree with Vikings Decision to reinstate Adrian Peterson?

Yes - 63%

No - 37%

(Total votes: 355,983)

Its time to move on people. Find your next faux outrage cause celebre

doesnt seem like a very scientific poll.

You're basing this just on the above post? Or do you have other info into the methodology?

you can tell by the number of votes. Real polls ask 1,000 people or less . This is an internet poll .

I'd say that it is a pretty good gauge of overall public sentiment - even if it is not "scientific" - when you look at the results by state - you get a sense that it is accurate - only states leaning against Peterson are in the northeast - typical liberal bias...in Texas, it was 70/30 split in his favor = no conviction.

Yeah, nothing gauges public sentiment like an internet poll on a sports web site. I'm sure that's an accurate reflection of the views of the public as a whole.

Also I don't think you know how the justice system works.

Please educate me.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Do you agree with Vikings Decision to reinstate Adrian Peterson?

Yes - 63%

No - 37%

(Total votes: 355,983)

Its time to move on people. Find your next faux outrage cause celebre

doesnt seem like a very scientific poll.

You're basing this just on the above post? Or do you have other info into the methodology?

you can tell by the number of votes. Real polls ask 1,000 people or less . This is an internet poll .

I'd say that it is a pretty good gauge of overall public sentiment - even if it is not "scientific" - when you look at the results by state - you get a sense that it is accurate - only states leaning against Peterson are in the northeast - typical liberal bias...in Texas, it was 70/30 split in his favor = no conviction.

Yeah, nothing gauges public sentiment like an internet poll on a sports web site. I'm sure that's an accurate reflection of the views of the public as a whole.

Also I don't think you know how the justice system works.

Please educate me.

Sure, my pleasure.

When you are charged with a crime, conviction at trial depends on whether a jury determines that you committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, after hearing the sides present their evidence in court. However, often in cases like this the defendant often pleads guilty to a lesser crime if both sides agree to that.

Despite this flexibility, it turns out that public opinion regarding whether the defendant should be on the active roster of a professional football team is not part of the process at any point! Crazy, I know. I blame Obama.

 

[jonessed]

I wish someone would stuff leaves in Tim's mouth and beat him bloody.

thanks. Do I know you?

Time to stop this crap. It's also 'ironic' that a thread about abuse contains personal attacks like this. If anyone doesn't like Tim's posts it's not that difficult to block them.

Teabagger.

 

[Guest]

Was the poll asking about a conviction? I would like to see a poll asking about a NFL suspension.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Ah, so now I understand.

But, work with me here, lets say you have a majority of people who think this behavior is acceptable - based on the 70% who think he should keep his job. Now, I'll concede the validity of the exact number of 70%, but lets assume that is a fairly good approximation of the potential jury pool, or even, if you like, lets just say only 50% think he should keep his job.

Now, this was not mentioned in your dissertation on the US justice system, and I don't know how the jury system works for criminal cases in Texas, but I will assume it would take more than 50% of the jurors to convict - is that a fair assumption? If we start with the premise that at least 50% think he should keep his job, then I think a fair inference can be made that at least 50% do not think he should be locked up - where, he would, almost by definition, lose his job.

Now, lets consider the advocates in the court room - middle of the road, public servants v. highly paid, highly skilled attorney - again, generally speaking, I am going to go with the highly paid vermin v. the road kill vermin.

This will be a fascinating legal case to watch - I am not entirely sure that Peterson will take a plea deal here - he has a lot to lose by pleading guilty to anything here - going to trial and getting an acquittal, while certainly a risky strategy, may be the play. I suspect a lot of negotiations with the NFL/Vikings will take place before that decision is made.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

If we start with the premise that at least 50% think he should keep his job, then I think a fair inference can be made that at least 50% do not think he should be locked up - where, he would, almost by definition, lose his job.

I don't think this is a fair inference. Some people might just think he should be reinstated for now, until the legal proceedings are completed. Those people aren't necessarily expressing a view as to whether he should ultimately be convicted.

 

[bigbottom]

Ah, so now I understand.

But, work with me here, lets say you have a majority of people who think this behavior is acceptable - based on the 70% who think he should keep his job. Now, I'll concede the validity of the exact number of 70%, but lets assume that is a fairly good approximation of the potential jury pool, or even, if you like, lets just say only 50% think he should keep his job.

Now, this was not mentioned in your dissertation on the US justice system, and I don't know how the jury system works for criminal cases in Texas, but I will assume it would take more than 50% of the jurors to convict - is that a fair assumption? If we start with the premise that at least 50% think he should keep his job, then I think a fair inference can be made that at least 50% do not think he should be locked up - where, he would, almost by definition, lose his job.

Now, lets consider the advocates in the court room - middle of the road, public servants v. highly paid, highly skilled attorney - again, generally speaking, I am going to go with the highly paid vermin v. the road kill vermin.

This will be a fascinating legal case to watch - I am not entirely sure that Peterson will take a plea deal here - he has a lot to lose by pleading guilty to anything here - going to trial and getting an acquittal, while certainly a risky strategy, may be the play. I suspect a lot of negotiations with the NFL/Vikings will take place before that decision is made.

I too tend to think it will be an uphil battle. That said, the general public has apparently not seen the photo of the worst injuries (the deeper laceration to the front of the thigh, and the injury to the genitalia). Indeed, much of the general public may not have seen any of the photos.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Ah, so now I understand.

But, work with me here, lets say you have a majority of people who think this behavior is acceptable - based on the 70% who think he should keep his job. Now, I'll concede the validity of the exact number of 70%, but lets assume that is a fairly good approximation of the potential jury pool, or even, if you like, lets just say only 50% think he should keep his job.

Now, this was not mentioned in your dissertation on the US justice system, and I don't know how the jury system works for criminal cases in Texas, but I will assume it would take more than 50% of the jurors to convict - is that a fair assumption? If we start with the premise that at least 50% think he should keep his job, then I think a fair inference can be made that at least 50% do not think he should be locked up - where, he would, almost by definition, lose his job.

Now, lets consider the advocates in the court room - middle of the road, public servants v. highly paid, highly skilled attorney - again, generally speaking, I am going to go with the highly paid vermin v. the road kill vermin.

This will be a fascinating legal case to watch - I am not entirely sure that Peterson will take a plea deal here - he has a lot to lose by pleading guilty to anything here - going to trial and getting an acquittal, while certainly a risky strategy, may be the play. I suspect a lot of negotiations with the NFL/Vikings will take place before that decision is made.

You are conflating "should he be reinstated" with "did he commit a crime"? They are two totally different questions, especially when you consider the number of players on NFL rosters who have committed crimes. It is very likely that there are people who would answer "yes" to both.

And that's before we even get to the ridiculous idea that an ESPN poll remotely resembles public opinion. ESPN poll voters skew male, older and more conservative. They also tend to have biases related to sports, like say wanting to watch the best running back in the league play football, that don't necessarily translate to the population. Some of them are probably even Vikings fans or own Peterson in fantasy football, and those are the people most inclined to see the poll and bother voting in it.

Anyway, I think it's silly to think the poll is meaningful or predictive of criminal proceedings, and even sillier to use it as evidence that "its time to move on people. Find your next faux outrage cause celebre." Even if only 37% of people think one of the league's best players should not be on the field, that's kind of a big deal. I did like the back to back French phrases, though.

 

[Sinn Fein]

If we start with the premise that at least 50% think he should keep his job, then I think a fair inference can be made that at least 50% do not think he should be locked up - where, he would, almost by definition, lose his job.

I don't think this is a fair inference. Some people might just think he should be reinstated for now, until the legal proceedings are completed. Those people aren't necessarily expressing a view as to whether he should ultimately be convicted.

See, now we are crossing streams...because you are suggesting that people would prefer to let due process play out, as it relates to his job and public opinion, while at the same time I am hearing arguments that people don't really care about due process unless it relates specifically to the legal proceedings - i.e. it is fair game to hate a person, or for a company to fire a person, without waiting for due process.

Tough to argue both perspectives.

I would just say that, right now, without all the evidence, as Bigbottom notes, the public perception of Peterson is such that he would not be convicted.

 

[bigbottom]

If we start with the premise that at least 50% think he should keep his job, then I think a fair inference can be made that at least 50% do not think he should be locked up - where, he would, almost by definition, lose his job.

I don't think this is a fair inference. Some people might just think he should be reinstated for now, until the legal proceedings are completed. Those people aren't necessarily expressing a view as to whether he should ultimately be convicted.

See, now we are crossing streams...because you are suggesting that people would prefer to let due process play out, as it relates to his job and public opinion, while at the same time I am hearing arguments that people don't really care about due process unless it relates specifically to the legal proceedings - i.e. it is fair game to hate a person, or for a company to fire a person, without waiting for due process.

Tough to argue both perspectives.

It's easy to argue both perspectives inasmuch as survey respondents represent multiple individuals who may indeed have conflicting and contradictory opinions.

I would just say that, right now, without all the evidence, as Bigbottom notes, the public perception of Peterson is such that he would not be convicted.

I don't think that public perception of Peterson plays much into why I think it will be an uphill battle for the prosecution.

 

[Ignoramus]

Do you agree with Vikings Decision to reinstate Adrian Peterson?

Yes - 63%

No - 37%

(Total votes: 355,983)

Its time to move on people. Find your next faux outrage cause celebre

doesnt seem like a very scientific poll.

You're basing this just on the above post? Or do you have other info into the methodology?

you can tell by the number of votes. Real polls ask 1,000 people or less . This is an internet poll .

I'd say that it is a pretty good gauge of overall public sentiment - even if it is not "scientific" - when you look at the results by state - you get a sense that it is accurate - only states leaning against Peterson are in the northeast - typical liberal bias...in Texas, it was 70/30 split in his favor = no conviction.

Yeah, nothing gauges public sentiment like an internet poll on a sports web site. I'm sure that's an accurate reflection of the views of the public as a whole.

Also I don't think you know how the justice system works.

Please educate me.

Sure, my pleasure.

When you are charged with a crime, conviction at trial depends on whether a jury determines that you committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, after hearing the sides present their evidence in court. However, often in cases like this the defendant often pleads guilty to a lesser crime if both sides agree to that.

Despite this flexibility, it turns out that public opinion regarding whether the defendant should be on the active roster of a professional football team is not part of the process at any point! Crazy, I know. I blame Obama.

So it's a lot like American Idol where the audience can vote you back in or out of the courtroom if they feel that the judge got it wrong?

 

[NCCommish]

I wish someone would stuff leaves in Tim's mouth and beat him bloody.

thanks. Do I know you?

Time to stop this crap. It's also 'ironic' that a thread about abuse contains personal attacks like this. If anyone doesn't like Tim's posts it's not that difficult to block them.

I have never blocked anyone, but wouldn't you still see the posts of people who quote him?

Serious question, if someone was to go back and look at every FFA thread that is more than 2 pages in length since he became a member, what percentage of them would have a comment by him? Blocking Tim is tantamount to blocking the FFA.

Better question who cares?

 

[NCCommish]

As to that poll. Internet polls are useless. They are not scientific. There is no way to know what the respondent thinks or why they think it. There is no way to know if those people have seen the injuries. It is useless. So personally I wouldn't base any theories on a self selecting internet poll.

 

[humpback]

So is this place going to shut down like the Minny message board?

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

How many sponsors dropping will it take for the Vikings to change course?

 

[Sinn Fein]

If we start with the premise that at least 50% think he should keep his job, then I think a fair inference can be made that at least 50% do not think he should be locked up - where, he would, almost by definition, lose his job.

I don't think this is a fair inference. Some people might just think he should be reinstated for now, until the legal proceedings are completed. Those people aren't necessarily expressing a view as to whether he should ultimately be convicted.

See, now we are crossing streams...because you are suggesting that people would prefer to let due process play out, as it relates to his job and public opinion, while at the same time I am hearing arguments that people don't really care about due process unless it relates specifically to the legal proceedings - i.e. it is fair game to hate a person, or for a company to fire a person, without waiting for due process.

Tough to argue both perspectives.

It's easy to argue both perspectives inasmuch as survey respondents represent multiple individuals who may indeed have conflicting and contradictory opinions.

I would just say that, right now, without all the evidence, as Bigbottom notes, the public perception of Peterson is such that he would not be convicted.

I don't think that public perception of Peterson plays much into why I think it will be an uphill battle for the prosecution.

Yeah - poorly worded - you noted that most people have not seen all of the evidence - which makes any opinion suspect in terms of whether they would convict. More damaging photos/evidence helps the prosecution, and we have not really heard the defense strategy here. My point was simply that based on what is known - a conviction is unlikely. Different evidence changes things either way.

 

[bigbottom]

If we start with the premise that at least 50% think he should keep his job, then I think a fair inference can be made that at least 50% do not think he should be locked up - where, he would, almost by definition, lose his job.

I don't think this is a fair inference. Some people might just think he should be reinstated for now, until the legal proceedings are completed. Those people aren't necessarily expressing a view as to whether he should ultimately be convicted.

See, now we are crossing streams...because you are suggesting that people would prefer to let due process play out, as it relates to his job and public opinion, while at the same time I am hearing arguments that people don't really care about due process unless it relates specifically to the legal proceedings - i.e. it is fair game to hate a person, or for a company to fire a person, without waiting for due process.

Tough to argue both perspectives.

It's easy to argue both perspectives inasmuch as survey respondents represent multiple individuals who may indeed have conflicting and contradictory opinions.

I would just say that, right now, without all the evidence, as Bigbottom notes, the public perception of Peterson is such that he would not be convicted.

I don't think that public perception of Peterson plays much into why I think it will be an uphill battle for the prosecution.

Yeah - poorly worded - you noted that most people have not seen all of the evidence - which makes any opinion suspect in terms of whether they would convict. More damaging photos/evidence helps the prosecution, and we have not really heard the defense strategy here. My point was simply that based on what is known - a conviction is unlikely. Different evidence changes things either way.

Ah, I misread. My bad.

 

[dparker713]

I think it's unlikely that Peterson gets convicted, because:

1. He's a famous celebrity.

2. The jury is in Texas.

3. A lot of people seem to be OK with this kind of "discipline".

4. Peterson has hired an expert, expensive attorney.

5. Peterson's attorney will turn this into a debate about corporal punishment.

Using history as my judge, Peterson will be found not guilty. It's up to the NFL and the Vikings to punish him. The Vikings have wimped out. Now it's up to the NFL.

I don't know. He's still a black man in East Texas.

He's a black feller in east Texas that played for Oklahoma and has hired an expensive out of state lawyer to try confuse matters. Also, his behavior could make them all lose their right to corporal punishment if they are not careful.

Montgomery County is essentially a Houston suburb (generally not considered East Texas) and AP's lawyer is a well-known Houstonian.

East Texas is downright cosmopolitan compared to west Texas.

 

[dparker713]

I'd link, but on phone.

I found it - my response above.

An independent media/news organization is a thing of the past never really existed. Not shocked that it happened, not shocked that it is not a story anywhere else.

Fixed.

 

[Gr00vus]

I wish someone would stuff leaves in Tim's mouth and beat him bloody.

Congrats, this is the first post I've ever reported. Seriously.

 

[Gr00vus]

Do you agree with Vikings Decision to reinstate Adrian Peterson?

Yes - 63%

No - 37%

(Total votes: 355,983)

Its time to move on people. Find your next faux outrage cause celebre

Yet you keep posting in this thread - voluminously.

 

[jonessed]

I wish someone would stuff leaves in Tim's mouth and beat him bloody.

Congrats, this is the first post I've ever reported. Seriously.

Please keep us informed on any future changes/additions.

 

[Gr00vus]

I wish someone would stuff leaves in Tim's mouth and beat him bloody.

Congrats, this is the first post I've ever reported. Seriously.

Please keep us informed on any future changes/additions.

You bet.

 

[SIDA!]

I wish someone would stuff leaves in Tim's mouth and beat him bloody.

thanks. Do I know you?

Time to stop this crap. It's also 'ironic' that a thread about abuse contains personal attacks like this. If anyone doesn't like Tim's posts it's not that difficult to block them.

I have never blocked anyone, but wouldn't you still see the posts of people who quote him?

Serious question, if someone was to go back and look at every FFA thread that is more than 2 pages in length since he became a member, what percentage of them would have a comment by him? Blocking Tim is tantamount to blocking the FFA.

Better question who cares?

When a guy seemingly posts in nearly every thread on the board and clearly demonstrates that he is too busy formulating the next post he is going to submit in lieu of actually reading posts that others have submitted, it gets a bit much.

 

[Zow]

Ah, so now I understand.

But, work with me here, lets say you have a majority of people who think this behavior is acceptable - based on the 70% who think he should keep his job. Now, I'll concede the validity of the exact number of 70%, but lets assume that is a fairly good approximation of the potential jury pool, or even, if you like, lets just say only 50% think he should keep his job.

Now, this was not mentioned in your dissertation on the US justice system, and I don't know how the jury system works for criminal cases in Texas, but I will assume it would take more than 50% of the jurors to convict - is that a fair assumption? If we start with the premise that at least 50% think he should keep his job, then I think a fair inference can be made that at least 50% do not think he should be locked up - where, he would, almost by definition, lose his job.

Now, lets consider the advocates in the court room - middle of the road, public servants v. highly paid, highly skilled attorney - again, generally speaking, I am going to go with the highly paid vermin v. the road kill vermin.

This will be a fascinating legal case to watch - I am not entirely sure that Peterson will take a plea deal here - he has a lot to lose by pleading guilty to anything here - going to trial and getting an acquittal, while certainly a risky strategy, may be the play. I suspect a lot of negotiations with the NFL/Vikings will take place before that decision is made.

Yeah I agree with very little of this.

1. It's not a fair inference to make that just because people think he shouldn't lose his job that he shouldn't be convicted and/or shouldn't go to jail. People commit misdemeanors or less serious felonies all the time and "deserve" to be convicted and serve some jail time. This is a far cry from losing their jobs though - heck, it's quite common for a person to get work release while in jail so that they don't lose their jobs. Society has an interest in people maintaining employment, while simultaneously having an interest in criminalizing their same bad behavior. I have no idea why you give so much weight to the notion that people think some criminals shouldn't be fired for their criminal acts.

2. I'm fairly confident that the legal standard in the Texas jury instructions isn't going to be "should the defendant lose his job?" Also, it's not up to the jury to decide whether the defendant should be jailed or put in prison. That's the judge's decision and, again, the judge will not intentionally try to jeopardize a defendant's employment.

3. I believe your discussion of the "vermin" involved in this case is also, to an extent misinformed.* I agree to an extent that Peterson's money will certainly aid in his defense because he can get a seasoned trial attorney and the best experts. But, this is a high profiled case. Odds are quite strong that the prosecutor on the case will also be a seasoned prosecutor who has dozens of trials under his or her belt. Plus, those pictures are the proverbial "smoking gun" here. I don't think this is a clear win for the state here, but my money would be on them to get a conviction.

4. Strongly disagree that trial would be "his play". In my jurisdiction (which tends to be similar to Texas) he's facing felony charges which could land him in prison. That's a huge risk. Instead, with the fact that he doesn't have any priors, this seems like a case where resolving in a manner comparable Ray Rice, where he may be able to avoid a permanent felony and minimize incarceration would be the "play". Of course, a lot of this hinges on the State's willingness to extend such an offer - which public sentiment and pressure may influence.

* But as a private criminal defense attorney, please keep your sentiment going strong so that people continue to be willing to pay our legal fees.

 

[flapgreen]

Lol

 

[Sinn Fein]

Ah, so now I understand.

But, work with me here, lets say you have a majority of people who think this behavior is acceptable - based on the 70% who think he should keep his job. Now, I'll concede the validity of the exact number of 70%, but lets assume that is a fairly good approximation of the potential jury pool, or even, if you like, lets just say only 50% think he should keep his job.

Now, this was not mentioned in your dissertation on the US justice system, and I don't know how the jury system works for criminal cases in Texas, but I will assume it would take more than 50% of the jurors to convict - is that a fair assumption? If we start with the premise that at least 50% think he should keep his job, then I think a fair inference can be made that at least 50% do not think he should be locked up - where, he would, almost by definition, lose his job.

Now, lets consider the advocates in the court room - middle of the road, public servants v. highly paid, highly skilled attorney - again, generally speaking, I am going to go with the highly paid vermin v. the road kill vermin.

This will be a fascinating legal case to watch - I am not entirely sure that Peterson will take a plea deal here - he has a lot to lose by pleading guilty to anything here - going to trial and getting an acquittal, while certainly a risky strategy, may be the play. I suspect a lot of negotiations with the NFL/Vikings will take place before that decision is made.

Yeah I agree with very little of this.

1. It's not a fair inference to make that just because people think he shouldn't lose his job that he shouldn't be convicted and/or shouldn't go to jail. People commit misdemeanors or less serious felonies all the time and "deserve" to be convicted and serve some jail time. This is a far cry from losing their jobs though - heck, it's quite common for a person to get work release while in jail so that they don't lose their jobs. Society has an interest in people maintaining employment, while simultaneously having an interest in criminalizing their same bad behavior. I have no idea why you give so much weight to the notion that people think some criminals shouldn't be fired for their criminal acts.

2. I'm fairly confident that the legal standard in the Texas jury instructions isn't going to be "should the defendant lose his job?" Also, it's not up to the jury to decide whether the defendant should be jailed or put in prison. That's the judge's decision and, again, the judge will not intentionally try to jeopardize a defendant's employment.

3. I believe your discussion of the "vermin" involved in this case is also, to an extent misinformed.* I agree to an extent that Peterson's money will certainly aid in his defense because he can get a seasoned trial attorney and the best experts. But, this is a high profiled case. Odds are quite strong that the prosecutor on the case will also be a seasoned prosecutor who has dozens of trials under his or her belt. Plus, those pictures are the proverbial "smoking gun" here. I don't think this is a clear win for the state here, but my money would be on them to get a conviction.

4. Strongly disagree that trial would be "his play". In my jurisdiction (which tends to be similar to Texas) he's facing felony charges which could land him in prison. That's a huge risk. Instead, with the fact that he doesn't have any priors, this seems like a case where resolving in a manner comparable Ray Rice, where he may be able to avoid a permanent felony and minimize incarceration would be the "play". Of course, a lot of this hinges on the State's willingness to extend such an offer - which public sentiment and pressure may influence.

I rest my case.

 

[Zow]

Ah, so now I understand.

But, work with me here, lets say you have a majority of people who think this behavior is acceptable - based on the 70% who think he should keep his job. Now, I'll concede the validity of the exact number of 70%, but lets assume that is a fairly good approximation of the potential jury pool, or even, if you like, lets just say only 50% think he should keep his job.

Now, this was not mentioned in your dissertation on the US justice system, and I don't know how the jury system works for criminal cases in Texas, but I will assume it would take more than 50% of the jurors to convict - is that a fair assumption? If we start with the premise that at least 50% think he should keep his job, then I think a fair inference can be made that at least 50% do not think he should be locked up - where, he would, almost by definition, lose his job.

Now, lets consider the advocates in the court room - middle of the road, public servants v. highly paid, highly skilled attorney - again, generally speaking, I am going to go with the highly paid vermin v. the road kill vermin.

This will be a fascinating legal case to watch - I am not entirely sure that Peterson will take a plea deal here - he has a lot to lose by pleading guilty to anything here - going to trial and getting an acquittal, while certainly a risky strategy, may be the play. I suspect a lot of negotiations with the NFL/Vikings will take place before that decision is made.

Yeah I agree with very little of this.

1. It's not a fair inference to make that just because people think he shouldn't lose his job that he shouldn't be convicted and/or shouldn't go to jail. People commit misdemeanors or less serious felonies all the time and "deserve" to be convicted and serve some jail time. This is a far cry from losing their jobs though - heck, it's quite common for a person to get work release while in jail so that they don't lose their jobs. Society has an interest in people maintaining employment, while simultaneously having an interest in criminalizing their same bad behavior. I have no idea why you give so much weight to the notion that people think some criminals shouldn't be fired for their criminal acts.

2. I'm fairly confident that the legal standard in the Texas jury instructions isn't going to be "should the defendant lose his job?" Also, it's not up to the jury to decide whether the defendant should be jailed or put in prison. That's the judge's decision and, again, the judge will not intentionally try to jeopardize a defendant's employment.

3. I believe your discussion of the "vermin" involved in this case is also, to an extent misinformed.* I agree to an extent that Peterson's money will certainly aid in his defense because he can get a seasoned trial attorney and the best experts. But, this is a high profiled case. Odds are quite strong that the prosecutor on the case will also be a seasoned prosecutor who has dozens of trials under his or her belt. Plus, those pictures are the proverbial "smoking gun" here. I don't think this is a clear win for the state here, but my money would be on them to get a conviction.

4. Strongly disagree that trial would be "his play". In my jurisdiction (which tends to be similar to Texas) he's facing felony charges which could land him in prison. That's a huge risk. Instead, with the fact that he doesn't have any priors, this seems like a case where resolving in a manner comparable Ray Rice, where he may be able to avoid a permanent felony and minimize incarceration would be the "play". Of course, a lot of this hinges on the State's willingness to extend such an offer - which public sentiment and pressure may influence.

I rest my case.

We're not discussing girls or cell phone plans here.

 

[dparker713]

Ah, so now I understand.

But, work with me here, lets say you have a majority of people who think this behavior is acceptable - based on the 70% who think he should keep his job. Now, I'll concede the validity of the exact number of 70%, but lets assume that is a fairly good approximation of the potential jury pool, or even, if you like, lets just say only 50% think he should keep his job.

Now, this was not mentioned in your dissertation on the US justice system, and I don't know how the jury system works for criminal cases in Texas, but I will assume it would take more than 50% of the jurors to convict - is that a fair assumption? If we start with the premise that at least 50% think he should keep his job, then I think a fair inference can be made that at least 50% do not think he should be locked up - where, he would, almost by definition, lose his job.

Now, lets consider the advocates in the court room - middle of the road, public servants v. highly paid, highly skilled attorney - again, generally speaking, I am going to go with the highly paid vermin v. the road kill vermin.

This will be a fascinating legal case to watch - I am not entirely sure that Peterson will take a plea deal here - he has a lot to lose by pleading guilty to anything here - going to trial and getting an acquittal, while certainly a risky strategy, may be the play. I suspect a lot of negotiations with the NFL/Vikings will take place before that decision is made.

Yeah I agree with very little of this.

1. It's not a fair inference to make that just because people think he shouldn't lose his job that he shouldn't be convicted and/or shouldn't go to jail. People commit misdemeanors or less serious felonies all the time and "deserve" to be convicted and serve some jail time. This is a far cry from losing their jobs though - heck, it's quite common for a person to get work release while in jail so that they don't lose their jobs. Society has an interest in people maintaining employment, while simultaneously having an interest in criminalizing their same bad behavior. I have no idea why you give so much weight to the notion that people think some criminals shouldn't be fired for their criminal acts.

2. I'm fairly confident that the legal standard in the Texas jury instructions isn't going to be "should the defendant lose his job?" Also, it's not up to the jury to decide whether the defendant should be jailed or put in prison. That's the judge's decision and, again, the judge will not intentionally try to jeopardize a defendant's employment.

3. I believe your discussion of the "vermin" involved in this case is also, to an extent misinformed.* I agree to an extent that Peterson's money will certainly aid in his defense because he can get a seasoned trial attorney and the best experts. But, this is a high profiled case. Odds are quite strong that the prosecutor on the case will also be a seasoned prosecutor who has dozens of trials under his or her belt. Plus, those pictures are the proverbial "smoking gun" here. I don't think this is a clear win for the state here, but my money would be on them to get a conviction.

4. Strongly disagree that trial would be "his play". In my jurisdiction (which tends to be similar to Texas) he's facing felony charges which could land him in prison. That's a huge risk. Instead, with the fact that he doesn't have any priors, this seems like a case where resolving in a manner comparable Ray Rice, where he may be able to avoid a permanent felony and minimize incarceration would be the "play". Of course, a lot of this hinges on the State's willingness to extend such an offer - which public sentiment and pressure may influence.

* But as a private criminal defense attorney, please keep your sentiment going strong so that people continue to be willing to pay our legal fees.

Actually, Texas is one of the few states that allows for jury sentencing in non-capital cases.

 

[Zow]

Ah, so now I understand.

But, work with me here, lets say you have a majority of people who think this behavior is acceptable - based on the 70% who think he should keep his job. Now, I'll concede the validity of the exact number of 70%, but lets assume that is a fairly good approximation of the potential jury pool, or even, if you like, lets just say only 50% think he should keep his job.

Now, this was not mentioned in your dissertation on the US justice system, and I don't know how the jury system works for criminal cases in Texas, but I will assume it would take more than 50% of the jurors to convict - is that a fair assumption? If we start with the premise that at least 50% think he should keep his job, then I think a fair inference can be made that at least 50% do not think he should be locked up - where, he would, almost by definition, lose his job.

Now, lets consider the advocates in the court room - middle of the road, public servants v. highly paid, highly skilled attorney - again, generally speaking, I am going to go with the highly paid vermin v. the road kill vermin.

This will be a fascinating legal case to watch - I am not entirely sure that Peterson will take a plea deal here - he has a lot to lose by pleading guilty to anything here - going to trial and getting an acquittal, while certainly a risky strategy, may be the play. I suspect a lot of negotiations with the NFL/Vikings will take place before that decision is made.

Yeah I agree with very little of this.

1. It's not a fair inference to make that just because people think he shouldn't lose his job that he shouldn't be convicted and/or shouldn't go to jail. People commit misdemeanors or less serious felonies all the time and "deserve" to be convicted and serve some jail time. This is a far cry from losing their jobs though - heck, it's quite common for a person to get work release while in jail so that they don't lose their jobs. Society has an interest in people maintaining employment, while simultaneously having an interest in criminalizing their same bad behavior. I have no idea why you give so much weight to the notion that people think some criminals shouldn't be fired for their criminal acts.

2. I'm fairly confident that the legal standard in the Texas jury instructions isn't going to be "should the defendant lose his job?" Also, it's not up to the jury to decide whether the defendant should be jailed or put in prison. That's the judge's decision and, again, the judge will not intentionally try to jeopardize a defendant's employment.

3. I believe your discussion of the "vermin" involved in this case is also, to an extent misinformed.* I agree to an extent that Peterson's money will certainly aid in his defense because he can get a seasoned trial attorney and the best experts. But, this is a high profiled case. Odds are quite strong that the prosecutor on the case will also be a seasoned prosecutor who has dozens of trials under his or her belt. Plus, those pictures are the proverbial "smoking gun" here. I don't think this is a clear win for the state here, but my money would be on them to get a conviction.

4. Strongly disagree that trial would be "his play". In my jurisdiction (which tends to be similar to Texas) he's facing felony charges which could land him in prison. That's a huge risk. Instead, with the fact that he doesn't have any priors, this seems like a case where resolving in a manner comparable Ray Rice, where he may be able to avoid a permanent felony and minimize incarceration would be the "play". Of course, a lot of this hinges on the State's willingness to extend such an offer - which public sentiment and pressure may influence.

* But as a private criminal defense attorney, please keep your sentiment going strong so that people continue to be willing to pay our legal fees.

Actually, Texas is one of the few states that allows for jury sentencing in non-capital cases.

No kidding? You mean they identify statutory aggravating and mitigating factors to determine movement within particular sentencing guidelines or the jury actually gives a specific sentence like "2.5 years"?