New charges filed against Brandon Marshall (1 Viewer)

[Stinkin Ref]

This thread is mostly pretty stupid.

Discussing a player's off the field transgressions and how they relate to his 2008 playing status or his 2009 playing status is not stupid.

reading into people's statements is stupid.I could be calling everyone in here a racist for calling BMarsh a thug, but I'm not - because that would be stupid.

Are you insinuating that only African Americans are thugs?

About as much as he insinuated that beating up women is immaturity.

It really was a weak comparison on Cecil's part. There is virtually no parallelism between the two inferences in question: Inferring from Cecil's statement that he considers beating up women a product merely of immaturity != inferring that anyone who calls Marshall a thug is racist.

Given that Cecil chose that word and only that word to describe Marshall, the first is a valid inference, albeit perhaps an incorrect inference.

However, to even consider the second inference plausible, one must first have some preconceived notion of what a thug is and is not as pertains to race. Since race had not been brought up prior to Cecil's post, we can only assume that HE is the one with that preconceived notion.

Now, I'm not saying he's racist, nor am I saying he considers beating women a product of simply immaturity. I am saying he chose a very poor example to use in defense of his point.

wow....looks like it was a good thing the dinner bell rang after this post.....:tapout:

Nope - just not worth responding to. The entire line of discussion is not worth my time in the Shark Pool. I made a one-line quip. thatguy wanted to engage in a long discussion. If you think it is REALLY important which inference is plausible and which is not, then you can go ahead an call a "winner." I'd rather talk about football and leave the rest to the FFA.By the way, the last two pages here suck as bad as the first 4.

yet....they return to read and post again.........last time....there is NO WAY Marshall could have already been suspended for this incident.....his lawyers and the players union would not have allowed him to be suspended for something they do not know if he even did....and I do not think Goddell would want to set the precedent of saying "I am factoring in this incident that may or may not have occurred as part of your suspension "

PLEASE STOP SAYING HE HAS ALREADY BEEN SUSPENDED FOR THIS INCIDENT....HOW CAN HE WHEN WE DON'T EVEN KNOW FOR SURE IF HE DID ANYTHING?

 

[lord_helmet]

I might be wrong but it is my understanding that you can be suspended for anything that makes the league look bad, you don't have to be guilty, just drawing unwanted attention can be enough.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[dagwood]

This thread is mostly pretty stupid.

Discussing a player's off the field transgressions and how they relate to his 2008 playing status or his 2009 playing status is not stupid.

reading into people's statements is stupid.I could be calling everyone in here a racist for calling BMarsh a thug, but I'm not - because that would be stupid.

Are you insinuating that only African Americans are thugs?

About as much as he insinuated that beating up women is immaturity.

It really was a weak comparison on Cecil's part. There is virtually no parallelism between the two inferences in question: Inferring from Cecil's statement that he considers beating up women a product merely of immaturity != inferring that anyone who calls Marshall a thug is racist.

Given that Cecil chose that word and only that word to describe Marshall, the first is a valid inference, albeit perhaps an incorrect inference.

However, to even consider the second inference plausible, one must first have some preconceived notion of what a thug is and is not as pertains to race. Since race had not been brought up prior to Cecil's post, we can only assume that HE is the one with that preconceived notion.

Now, I'm not saying he's racist, nor am I saying he considers beating women a product of simply immaturity. I am saying he chose a very poor example to use in defense of his point.

wow....looks like it was a good thing the dinner bell rang after this post.....:tapout:

Nope - just not worth responding to. The entire line of discussion is not worth my time in the Shark Pool. I made a one-line quip. thatguy wanted to engage in a long discussion. If you think it is REALLY important which inference is plausible and which is not, then you can go ahead an call a "winner." I'd rather talk about football and leave the rest to the FFA.By the way, the last two pages here suck as bad as the first 4.

yet....they return to read and post again.........last time....there is NO WAY Marshall could have already been suspended for this incident.....his lawyers and the players union would not have allowed him to be suspended for something they do not know if he even did....and I do not think Goddell would want to set the precedent of saying "I am factoring in this incident that may or may not have occurred as part of your suspension "

PLEASE STOP SAYING HE HAS ALREADY BEEN SUSPENDED FOR THIS INCIDENT....HOW CAN HE WHEN WE DON'T EVEN KNOW FOR SURE IF HE DID ANYTHING?

Please go to this great website called google.com and type in "Marshall Suspension"....and magically all sorts of links will pop up to articles....read one or more of them and you will see he was suspended for the incident in question.....the NFL conduct policy does NOT require the commissioner to wait until the wheels of justice slowly complete the process.....

 

[Marc Levin]

What makes you so certain ? The lawyer said that the league had access to the police report when determining his punishment. He served his time, how could they re-open it without looking like complete morons ?

I'm not 100% certain, but from everything I'm reading on the subject, he is open for additional punishment if found guilty. I don't think his previous one game punishment was solely based upon him being guilty of "this" incident before even being tried for it.

His one game suspension was based on the poor conduct provision of the CBA (can't remember what they call that provision). This incident was known to them when they imposed it. That said, my belief is that Goodall reduced his suspension from 2 games to 1 because he realized a criminal conviction could open Marshall up to an additional suspension under the criminal conduct provision of the CBA/league rules.

 

[Marc Levin]

his lawyers and the players union would not have allowed him to be suspended for something they do not know if he even did

A criminal conviction is not necessary for the league to have authority to suspend a player. They just have to hear about an incidenct.PacMan in a strip club = conduct, and nothing illegal about it. NFL = private organization, Union = party that negotiated the CBA. CBA includes provisions regarding conduct.

 

[Linus Scrimmage]

ZZZZZZzzzzzzZZzzzZzzZZZZZZZZ

Nothing to see here. Move along please

 

[OU#1]

Is there anything but speculation and opinions in this thread?

I read the first two pages the other day and was disgusted...

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

What makes you so certain ? The lawyer said that the league had access to the police report when determining his punishment. He served his time, how could they re-open it without looking like complete morons ?

I'm not 100% certain, but from everything I'm reading on the subject, he is open for additional punishment if found guilty. I don't think his previous one game punishment was solely based upon him being guilty of "this" incident before even being tried for it.

His one game suspension was based on the poor conduct provision of the CBA (can't remember what they call that provision). This incident was known to them when they imposed it. That said, my belief is that Goodall reduced his suspension from 2 games to 1 because he realized a criminal conviction could open Marshall up to an additional suspension under the criminal conduct provision of the CBA/league rules.

Thanks for the clarificaton Marc.

 

[dagwood]

What makes you so certain ? The lawyer said that the league had access to the police report when determining his punishment. He served his time, how could they re-open it without looking like complete morons ?

I'm not 100% certain, but from everything I'm reading on the subject, he is open for additional punishment if found guilty. I don't think his previous one game punishment was solely based upon him being guilty of "this" incident before even being tried for it.

His one game suspension was based on the poor conduct provision of the CBA (can't remember what they call that provision). This incident was known to them when they imposed it. That said, my belief is that Goodall reduced his suspension from 2 games to 1 because he realized a criminal conviction could open Marshall up to an additional suspension under the criminal conduct provision of the CBA/league rules.

Thanks for the clarificaton Marc.

Rotoworld) NFL spokesman Greg Aiello backed up ESPN's Michael Smith's report that Brandon Marshall could face more disciplinary action if he's found guilty of his latest charges.Analysis: Aiello said the league has been aware of the potential chargers, and they'll continue to monitor the case under the personal conduct policy. Marshall's "history" may be cause for pause among Dynasty leaguers, but there's no reason for redrafters to overreact.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

Is there anything but speculation and opinions in this thread?I read the first two pages the other day and was disgusted...

Marc's reply was the best one in this thread.

 

[dagwood]

Is there anything but speculation and opinions in this thread?I read the first two pages the other day and was disgusted...

Basically a non-issue for redrafters but something you should keep an eye on if you are in a keeper/dynasty league....but seriously....you knew this was a risk if he picked Marshall in a keeper/dynasty format.....he is the poster child for the high risk/high reward pick....And if you don't own Marshall.....definately post the story on your message board and calmly offer to take Marshall off the hands of the now worried owner....

 

[renesauz]

I couldn't possible take the time tyo read this whole thread, and it's the first time I've been in the SP since I heard the "news", but I'm not surrised at the HUGE amount of short-sighted over-reaction evidant in here.

First of all, the incident was known about BEFORE his suspension, and charges were PENDING at that time. IE: Goodell and everyone else already knew about this particular case.

Second, it took 6 months for the state to make a decision about whether o not to file any charges at all, and the best they could come up with is MISDEMEAMOR battery? A charge that typically results in nothing more then a small fine?

The only way he gets more suspension out of this is if it turns out he lied to Goodall about something. FAr more likely is a quick plea bargain with minimal consequences.

 

[Marc Levin]

I couldn't possible take the time tyo read this whole thread, and it's the first time I've been in the SP since I heard the "news", but I'm not surrised at the HUGE amount of short-sighted over-reaction evidant in here.

First of all, the incident was known about BEFORE his suspension, and charges were PENDING at that time. IE: Goodell and everyone else already knew about this particular case.

Second, it took 6 months for the state to make a decision about whether o not to file any charges at all, and the best they could come up with is MISDEMEAMOR battery? A charge that typically results in nothing more then a small fine?

The only way he gets more suspension out of this is if it turns out he lied to Goodall about something. FAr more likely is a quick plea bargain with minimal consequences.

The league takes domestic violence/assault convictions seriously. As for what he was charged with, we do not know if it was two counts of straight battery or if aggravating factors were alleged (under th Family Violence Act). Finally, misdemeanors in GA carry potential jail time of up to a year less one day.http://www.georgiadefenders.com/assault.simplebattery.htm

http://www.georgiadefenders.com/misdemeanors.htm

 

[renesauz]

I couldn't possible take the time tyo read this whole thread, and it's the first time I've been in the SP since I heard the "news", but I'm not surrised at the HUGE amount of short-sighted over-reaction evidant in here.

First of all, the incident was known about BEFORE his suspension, and charges were PENDING at that time. IE: Goodell and everyone else already knew about this particular case.

Second, it took 6 months for the state to make a decision about whether o not to file any charges at all, and the best they could come up with is MISDEMEAMOR battery? A charge that typically results in nothing more then a small fine?

The only way he gets more suspension out of this is if it turns out he lied to Goodall about something. FAr more likely is a quick plea bargain with minimal consequences.

The league takes domestic violence/assault convictions seriously. As for what he was charged with, we do not know if it was two counts of straight battery or if aggravating factors were alleged (under th Family Violence Act). Finally, misdemeanors in GA carry potential jail time of up to a year less one day.http://www.georgiadefenders.com/assault.simplebattery.htm

http://www.georgiadefenders.com/misdemeanors.htm

And minimum terms of ...nothing! There is a lot of latitude in misdemeanor sentencing for a reason. I know that the league takes these thngs seriously, but there is so little here to go on. Her sisters confirm he slapped her? Did she hit him too? I am in no way trying to minimize or legitimize domestic violence, but when it takes 6 months to even decide whether to press charges, and there were no apparent injuries (not even a bruise is mentioned), I can't help but think that there is almost nothing to this.

FWIW, in todays environment, you'd be shocked at how easy it is in most places for a woman to have assault charges drawn up. I know a guy who held his wife still after she blew the rent money on shopping (for non-necessities). Never hit her, never shoved her...simply wouldn't let her walk away while he yelled a bit...and was arrested/convicted. I WAS THERE!!! (witnessed) Does that make him a wife- beater? Under the law, he was technicly guilty.

All I'm saying is that we have almost zero details, but Goodall did. The courts/cops do. I think that the fact it took 6 months to charge him is very telling. The fact that she was cited for violance in another incident is telling. The fact that no injuies occured is telling.

All things together that we know tell me this is a virtual non-event many of us are over-reacting to. It's worth watching, but rampant speculation of further suspensions or jail time are ridiculous at this point. It's far likelier that nothing further (other then a fine and/or couseling) comes of it.

 

[Marc Levin]

Great - more speculation.

Let's stay on facts and football. This is not likely to result in suspensions THIS year. But, you have no basis for a statement like: "All things together that we know tell me this is a virtual non-event"

All the things we know about this event amount to a hill of absolutely nothing. We do not know anything about the event, the basis of the charges, or the likelihood of conviction/suspension.

 

[moderated]

Great - more speculation.We do not know anything about the event, the basis of the charges, or the likelihood of conviction/suspension.

it's funny how those supporting Marshall speculate as much or more then anyone else but still yell at people for speculating. Too funny.

 

[renesauz]

Great - more speculation.

We do not know anything about the event, the basis of the charges, or the likelihood of conviction/suspension.

it's funny how those supporting Marshall speculate as much or more then anyone else but still yell at people for speculating. Too funny.

So, it normally takes a police department/DA 6 months to build a misdemeanor battery charge?That's not specuation, it's fact.

My statements about battery in domestic cases, and how strict the law is are not speculation, but fact.

The known facts suggest a fairly minor incident the NFL was already aware of. If I recall correctly, at the time of his suspenson, these charges were already expected. My example was meant to illustrate the fact that domestic misdemeanor assault cases are NOT necessarily serious. The general assumption here is that not only is any domestic assault case serious, but will result in significant repercussions from the league office. That is, to put it bluntly, a ridiculous assumption.

I'm simply trying to point out that this is not TRULY new news, and unless something else significant comes out of it (or more incidents occur), is not likely, IMO, to result in another suspension.

 

[SCT]

Great - more speculation.We do not know anything about the event, the basis of the charges, or the likelihood of conviction/suspension.

it's funny how those supporting Marshall speculate as much or more then anyone else but still yell at people for speculating. Too funny.

What's funny is that you guys are still in here arguing about this. I didn't want to look, but it was like a bad car wreck I had to gawk at while I drove by.