QB Deshaun Watson, CLE (3 Viewers)

[DropKick]

fwiw....here's this from Peter King and FMIA....

"4. One influential NFL person told me on this trip that it doesn’t sit well with the league or 31 other owners that the Browns rigged the Watson contract so that his suspension would cause him to lose only a fraction of his 2022 compensation. A suspension of six games, for instance, means Watson would be docked six-eighteenths (there are 18 game weeks, including the bye) of his $1.035-million salary, or $344,655. So if Robinson’s suspension with no additional fine other than six game checks stands, it means Watson would lose 0.7 percent of his $46-million total compensation this year. That’s almost absurd beyond words. I expect Harvey to be under some pressure to levy a multi-million-dollar fine of Watson in whatever he rules."

so as I have said from the beginning....there are people that feel there was an element of the Browns and Watson playing games or "rigging" his contract due to feeling as though there would be a suspension....

The only people who don’t think this are browns fans detached from reality.

Speaking of, haven’t seen Soulfy or Obie in here for a while. Weren’t they 1000000% certain there’d be a zero game suspension and the NFL would look silly for wanting one?

You have a great imagination.

Oh no - it seems the ignore feature didn’t import with the rest of the old site. Ah well, easily remedied.

Not sure why you’re white knighting Obie Wan or what you think I’m imagining, but no concern. Off to block you I go. Toodles!

Same old HSG. Nobody was adamant about a zero game suspension... But, hey, let's just make it up.

 

[Tanner9919]

but hey, let's trot out the multi spousal abuser, multi accused rapist Jim Brown out there as the friggin face of the NFL. LOl. just oozes hypocrisy. Robert Kraft got caught with his pants down in a massage parlor apparently harassing the girls who put the oil on his back,etc. but that scumbag gets off without a charge? wtf is going on with the NFL. Ray Rice carrer ruined. Jim Brown beats the **** out of a number of women, attempts to rape or actually does rape but victims refuse to testify because he trheatens to beat the **** out of them, and he's introducing player at the NFL draft, gets cushy meet-n-greet gigs the NFL sponsors. any one of you who has a jim brown signed shirt,hat,helmet, football should be ****ing ashamed of yourself for condoning this scumbag in his thug career of violence and reported, repeated rapes.*allegedly*

 

[Stinkin Ref]

but hey, let's trot out the multi spousal abuser, multi accused rapist Jim Brown out there as the friggin face of the NFL. LOl. just oozes hypocrisy. Robert Kraft got caught with his pants down in a massage parlor apparently harassing the girls who put the oil on his back,etc. but that scumbag gets off without a charge? wtf is going on with the NFL. Ray Rice carrer ruined. Jim Brown beats the **** out of a number of women, attempts to rape or actually does rape but victims refuse to testify because he trheatens to beat the **** out of them, and he's introducing player at the NFL draft, gets cushy meet-n-greet gigs the NFL sponsors. any one of you who has a jim brown signed shirt,hat,helmet, football should be ****ing ashamed of yourself for condoning this scumbag in his thug career of violence and reported, repeated rapes.*allegedly*

What do you mean by "harassing"...is there evidence that he put them in a position they didn't want to be in...?..."harassed" girls"....what exactly does that mean when you say it like you did....did he somehow force them into a rub and tug.....?....or was it consensual and basically a business deal...?

 

[Chaka]

but hey, let's trot out the multi spousal abuser, multi accused rapist Jim Brown out there as the friggin face of the NFL. LOl. just oozes hypocrisy. Robert Kraft got caught with his pants down in a massage parlor apparently harassing the girls who put the oil on his back,etc. but that scumbag gets off without a charge? wtf is going on with the NFL. Ray Rice carrer ruined. Jim Brown beats the **** out of a number of women, attempts to rape or actually does rape but victims refuse to testify because he trheatens to beat the **** out of them, and he's introducing player at the NFL draft, gets cushy meet-n-greet gigs the NFL sponsors. any one of you who has a jim brown signed shirt,hat,helmet, football should be ****ing ashamed of yourself for condoning this scumbag in his thug career of violence and reported, repeated rapes.*allegedly*

What do you mean by "harassing"...is there evidence that he put them in a position they didn't want to be in...?..."harassed" girls"....what exactly does that mean when you say it like you did....did he somehow force them into a rub and tug.....?....or was it consensual and basically a business deal...?

Does it really matter? Do we think he got caught at a strip mall rub'n'tug by accident? Some kind of innocent mistake?

He went there for an Old Fashioned and got popped. The league has codified, in writing, that owners are to be held to a higher standard. Clearly that isn't the reality.

Watson is a predatory ######-### who deserves more punishment than he will receive, but Kraft is no innocent and should have been held accountable for participating in human sex trafficking.

 

[TheWinz]

It's sad that one of a union's main purposes is to protect the jobs of the small handful of scumbags they are obligated to represent. I am in a union, and I know we spend more money fighting battles for about 3% of our workforce than we do for the other 97%.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Can someone explain why the league is going so much harder at Watson when compared to Kamara’s situation?
It doesn’t make sense. Kamara and his boys beat the crap out of a guy (which is probably on video but the NFL is doing their best to not have it released) and Kamara was criminally charged. For Watson, no criminal charges (yes, he did settle with a bunch of women).

Is it mostly because Kamara is a bigger star and more popular with the fans?

DeShaun Watson was found guilty of sexual predatory behavior by Sue the Judge

Here is an exact quote "sexual assault; conduct that poses a genuine danger to the safety and well-being of another person; and conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL" And we all know that the highlighted in red part of this quote is what likely is driving the suspension being expanded. The NFL has had this issue hanging over their heads for a long time. Most folks have already forgotten about Kamara or cared very little to read much about his criminal activity.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

fwiw....here's this from Peter King and FMIA....

"4. One influential NFL person told me on this trip that it doesn’t sit well with the league or 31 other owners that the Browns rigged the Watson contract so that his suspension would cause him to lose only a fraction of his 2022 compensation. A suspension of six games, for instance, means Watson would be docked six-eighteenths (there are 18 game weeks, including the bye) of his $1.035-million salary, or $344,655. So if Robinson’s suspension with no additional fine other than six game checks stands, it means Watson would lose 0.7 percent of his $46-million total compensation this year. That’s almost absurd beyond words. I expect Harvey to be under some pressure to levy a multi-million-dollar fine of Watson in whatever he rules."

so as I have said from the beginning....there are people that feel there was an element of the Browns and Watson playing games or "rigging" his contract due to feeling as though there would be a suspension....

The only people who don’t think this are browns fans detached from reality.

Speaking of, haven’t seen Soulfy or Obie in here for a while. Weren’t they 1000000% certain there’d be a zero game suspension and the NFL would look silly for wanting one?

You have a great imagination.

Oh no - it seems the ignore feature didn’t import with the rest of the old site. Ah well, easily remedied.

Not sure why you’re white knighting Obie Wan or what you think I’m imagining, but no concern. Off to block you I go. Toodles!

Same old HSG. Nobody was adamant about a zero game suspension... But, hey, let's just make it up.

Obi Wan said it constantly. He also said this was all a Buzbee creation and the judge would see through it.

Soul Fly did but in an obviously schtick way (playing week 1) since he was on 6-8 all along.

 

[MAC_32]

fwiw....here's this from Peter King and FMIA....

"4. One influential NFL person told me on this trip that it doesn’t sit well with the league or 31 other owners that the Browns rigged the Watson contract so that his suspension would cause him to lose only a fraction of his 2022 compensation. A suspension of six games, for instance, means Watson would be docked six-eighteenths (there are 18 game weeks, including the bye) of his $1.035-million salary, or $344,655. So if Robinson’s suspension with no additional fine other than six game checks stands, it means Watson would lose 0.7 percent of his $46-million total compensation this year. That’s almost absurd beyond words. I expect Harvey to be under some pressure to levy a multi-million-dollar fine of Watson in whatever he rules."

so as I have said from the beginning....there are people that feel there was an element of the Browns and Watson playing games or "rigging" his contract due to feeling as though there would be a suspension....

The only people who don’t think this are browns fans detached from reality.

Speaking of, haven’t seen Soulfy or Obie in here for a while. Weren’t they 1000000% certain there’d be a zero game suspension and the NFL would look silly for wanting one?

You have a great imagination.

Oh no - it seems the ignore feature didn’t import with the rest of the old site. Ah well, easily remedied.

Not sure why you’re white knighting Obie Wan or what you think I’m imagining, but no concern. Off to block you I go. Toodles!

Same old HSG. Nobody was adamant about a zero game suspension... But, hey, let's just make it up.

Obi Wan said it constantly. He also said this was all a Buzbee creation and the judge would see through it.

Soul Fly did but in an obviously schtick way (playing week 1) since he was on 6-8 all along.

Amplifying the voices on an extreme is counter productive.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

fwiw....here's this from Peter King and FMIA....

"4. One influential NFL person told me on this trip that it doesn’t sit well with the league or 31 other owners that the Browns rigged the Watson contract so that his suspension would cause him to lose only a fraction of his 2022 compensation. A suspension of six games, for instance, means Watson would be docked six-eighteenths (there are 18 game weeks, including the bye) of his $1.035-million salary, or $344,655. So if Robinson’s suspension with no additional fine other than six game checks stands, it means Watson would lose 0.7 percent of his $46-million total compensation this year. That’s almost absurd beyond words. I expect Harvey to be under some pressure to levy a multi-million-dollar fine of Watson in whatever he rules."

so as I have said from the beginning....there are people that feel there was an element of the Browns and Watson playing games or "rigging" his contract due to feeling as though there would be a suspension....

The only people who don’t think this are browns fans detached from reality.

Speaking of, haven’t seen Soulfy or Obie in here for a while. Weren’t they 1000000% certain there’d be a zero game suspension and the NFL would look silly for wanting one?

You have a great imagination.

Oh no - it seems the ignore feature didn’t import with the rest of the old site. Ah well, easily remedied.

Not sure why you’re white knighting Obie Wan or what you think I’m imagining, but no concern. Off to block you I go. Toodles!

Same old HSG. Nobody was adamant about a zero game suspension... But, hey, let's just make it up.

Obi Wan said it constantly. He also said this was all a Buzbee creation and the judge would see through it.

Soul Fly did but in an obviously schtick way (playing week 1) since he was on 6-8 all along.

Amplifying the voices on an extreme is counter productive.

Just correcting misinformation.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

Amplifying the voices on an extreme is counter productive.

This thread has 12 channels integrated with modulated amplification.
The extreme faction has two tools in their toolbox.
Their pitchforks and torches.
Self-righteousness Internet outrage is the economic commodity of the day.

 

[Apple Juice]

Amplifying the voices on an extreme is counter productive.

This thread has 12 channels integrated with modulated amplification.
The extreme faction has two tools in their toolbox.
Their pitchforks and torches.
Self-righteousness Internet outrage is the economic commodity of the day.

This is hilarious. Which camp are you in by the way? This is all a bunch of fuss about nothing?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Amplifying the voices on an extreme is counter productive.

This thread has 12 channels integrated with modulated amplification.
The extreme faction has two tools in their toolbox.
Their pitchforks and torches.
Self-righteousness Internet outrage is the economic commodity of the day.

This is hilarious. Which camp are you in by the way? This is all a bunch of fuss about nothing?

He left out “the victim blamers”, the “anti-woke police”, the “stick my fingers in my ears and run around screaming ‘Watson did nothing wrong, La, La, La’ “ crowd as well.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

Amplifying the voices on an extreme is counter productive.

This thread has 12 channels integrated with modulated amplification.
The extreme faction has two tools in their toolbox.
Their pitchforks and torches.
Self-righteousness Internet outrage is the economic commodity of the day.

This is hilarious. Which camp are you in by the way? This is all a bunch of fuss about nothing?

He left out “the victim blamers”, the “anti-woke police”, the “stick my fingers in my ears and run around screaming ‘Watson did nothing wrong, La, La, La’ “ crowd as well.

You can set your clock to this.
Too easy, lol.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Watson stated or is leaking that he WILL ACCEPT an 8-game suspension and a $5M fine if this charade goes away and he can save half the season? Watson is adamant about playing a significant amount of games in 2022.

Now we have the tables set...Roger pushes for a season, Watson says how about 8...and Harvey the Rabbit will pull a pawn shop move and split the difference with 12 games.
And then there's the financial terms or penalty that must be paid...

Watson: "Excuse me, sir...sir, I know this is your league but I'm desperately late for the 2022 season and I was hoping to appeal to your good nature and just let me take the field"
Goodell "I don't have a good nature"

Watson: "Can I offer you $1M of my game salary? $2M, I'll give you $2M if you let me on the field in '22.
Goodell : "I'l take $5M"
Watson: "Alright"

Goodell: "Anyone who would pay $5M, certainly would pay $10M"
Watson "Not necessarily...alright $10Million! You're a thief!"
Goodell: "Close...I'm an attorney and the Commissioner of the NFL"

 

[Faust]

NFL was warned about Deshaun Watson's suspension length in June, giving league month to consider taking control of outcome

 

[MAC_32]

Amplifying the voices on an extreme is counter productive.

This thread has 12 channels integrated with modulated amplification.
The extreme faction has two tools in their toolbox.
Their pitchforks and torches.
Self-righteousness Internet outrage is the economic commodity of the day.

This is hilarious. Which camp are you in by the way? This is all a bunch of fuss about nothing?

He left out “the victim blamers”, the “anti-woke police”, the “stick my fingers in my ears and run around screaming ‘Watson did nothing wrong, La, La, La’ “ crowd as well.

Amplifying the voices on an extreme is counter productive.

 

[zeeshan2]

Before the initial 6-game suspension was handed to him, the NFL offered Watson to settle for an 12-game suspension with an $8 million fine. He declined and is now facing what is likely a full-year+more suspension. Watson now trying to reach a deal. Probably too little, too late

https://twitter.com/NFL_DovKleiman/status/1558076327659462656

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Amplifying the voices on an extreme is counter productive.

This thread has 12 channels integrated with modulated amplification.
The extreme faction has two tools in their toolbox.
Their pitchforks and torches.
Self-righteousness Internet outrage is the economic commodity of the day.

This is hilarious. Which camp are you in by the way? This is all a bunch of fuss about nothing?

He left out “the victim blamers”, the “anti-woke police”, the “stick my fingers in my ears and run around screaming ‘Watson did nothing wrong, La, La, La’ “ crowd as well.

Amplifying the voices on an extreme is counter productive.

You lack context.

 

[Apple Juice]

Amplifying the voices on an extreme is counter productive.

This thread has 12 channels integrated with modulated amplification.
The extreme faction has two tools in their toolbox.
Their pitchforks and torches.
Self-righteousness Internet outrage is the economic commodity of the day.

This is hilarious. Which camp are you in by the way? This is all a bunch of fuss about nothing?

He left out “the victim blamers”, the “anti-woke police”, the “stick my fingers in my ears and run around screaming ‘Watson did nothing wrong, La, La, La’ “ crowd as well.

You can set your clock to this.
Too easy, lol.

So you got nothin. Enjoy the season guy.

 

[Anarchy99]

The rumor is the decision on the appeal will drop moments before the close of business today, with the league concurrently filing for a declaratory judgment at the same time in NYC minutes before the court shuts down for the day. If the decision is to lengthen Watson's suspension substantially, that would block the NFLPA from doing anything in court until Monday. If the decision involved a full season suspension, that would also prevent Watson from playing tonight against the Jags.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Before the initial 6-game suspension was handed to him, the NFL offered Watson to settle for an 12-game suspension with an $8 million fine. He declined and is now facing what is likely a full-year+more suspension. Watson now trying to reach a deal. Probably too little, too late

https://twitter.com/NFL_DovKleiman/status/1558076327659462656

Reading these media reports is so bizarre. I guess most people just assume the commissioner will arbitrarily increase the penalty to an entire season despite the Judge's ruling? Normally, having turned down an offer for an agreed 12 game suspension would seem like a smart move in retrospect as he was vindicated by Robinson's ruling at 6 games. In any normal negotiation, the NFL settlement offer would have to come down given the binding ruling they received in the meantime and having only appeal rights as leverage. Of course, that assumes a normal appeal process which in any sane world would go before another neutral who would give deference to the underlying arbitration ruling.

To me, it seems like extremely dangerous precedent to set. What is the point of having binding arbitration if it has an appeal process unilaterally controlled by one of the two parties who can disregard and change the outcome?

 

[Anarchy99]

Before the initial 6-game suspension was handed to him, the NFL offered Watson to settle for an 12-game suspension with an $8 million fine. He declined and is now facing what is likely a full-year+more suspension. Watson now trying to reach a deal. Probably too little, too late

https://twitter.com/NFL_DovKleiman/status/1558076327659462656

Reading these media reports is so bizarre. I guess most people just assume the commissioner will arbitrarily increase the penalty to an entire season despite the Judge's ruling? Normally, having turned down an offer for an agreed 12 game suspension would seem like a smart move in retrospect as he was vindicated by Robinson's ruling at 6 games. In any normal negotiation, the NFL settlement offer would have to come down given the binding ruling they received in the meantime and having only appeal rights as leverage. Of course, that assumes a normal appeal process which in any sane world would go before another neutral who would give deference to the underlying arbitration ruling.

To me, it seems like extremely dangerous precedent to set. What is the point of having binding arbitration if it has an appeal process unilaterally controlled by one of the two parties who can disregard and change the outcome?

From what I have seen this week, the argument Goodell and the league is trying to make is that Watson violated the PCP with 4 different women. So in their mind, they should have the right to discipline him x 4. I do agree with Robinson in that the PCP and CBA is riddled with holes in terms of what is covered and clearly defined or not. If the penalty for inappropriate acts is 6 games, it almost seems like you could commit the same act 100 times and still only get 6 games. We will have to see the revised ruling to see if the league was granted the right to count each case separately.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Before the initial 6-game suspension was handed to him, the NFL offered Watson to settle for an 12-game suspension with an $8 million fine. He declined and is now facing what is likely a full-year+more suspension. Watson now trying to reach a deal. Probably too little, too late

https://twitter.com/NFL_DovKleiman/status/1558076327659462656

Reading these media reports is so bizarre. I guess most people just assume the commissioner will arbitrarily increase the penalty to an entire season despite the Judge's ruling? Normally, having turned down an offer for an agreed 12 game suspension would seem like a smart move in retrospect as he was vindicated by Robinson's ruling at 6 games. In any normal negotiation, the NFL settlement offer would have to come down given the binding ruling they received in the meantime and having only appeal rights as leverage. Of course, that assumes a normal appeal process which in any sane world would go before another neutral who would give deference to the underlying arbitration ruling.

To me, it seems like extremely dangerous precedent to set. What is the point of having binding arbitration if it has an appeal process unilaterally controlled by one of the two parties who can disregard and change the outcome?

Yes, for the sake of consistency and equity, I wish the NFL would just stick with the ruling - but understand why they feel the need to do more.
I’m not sure how extremely dangerous it is necessarily, since Goodell having final say has really always been the case and the league has survived.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

From what I have seen this week, the argument Goodell and the league is trying to make is that Watson violated the PCP with 4 different women. So in their mind, they should have the right to discipline him x 4. I do agree with Robinson in that the PCP and CBA is riddled with holes in terms of what is covered and clearly defined or not. If the penalty for inappropriate acts is 6 games, it almost seems like you could commit the same act 100 times and still only get 6 games. We will have to see the revised ruling to see if the league was granted the right to count each case separately.

The way I read Robinson's opinion, she's saying the norm for violent sexual assault is six games. The max so far for non-violent sexual assault has been three games. But she doubled that for Watson for a few reasons, mainly because his offense was repeated multiple times.

So she did take into account the repeated offenses.

 

[MAC_32]

Amplifying the voices on an extreme is counter productive.

This thread has 12 channels integrated with modulated amplification.
The extreme faction has two tools in their toolbox.
Their pitchforks and torches.
Self-righteousness Internet outrage is the economic commodity of the day.

This is hilarious. Which camp are you in by the way? This is all a bunch of fuss about nothing?

He left out “the victim blamers”, the “anti-woke police”, the “stick my fingers in my ears and run around screaming ‘Watson did nothing wrong, La, La, La’ “ crowd as well.

Amplifying the voices on an extreme is counter productive.

You lack context.

I doubt it. We're probably just approaching this from two different lenses. Based on what you're sharing you are giving the impression that a significant % are victim blamers, fingers in ears, zero game suspensions, anti woke police (...what?), etc. This was in response to citing self righteous internet outrage. Our media feeds both of these perspectives because they're the loudest and their sources engage substantially more than everyone else, which increases profits.

The lens I'm referring to is from that of 'everyone else.' Now, how wide is my net? Like any normal person, miniscule. I listen to and read media, but in relatively small doses and from multiple sources. I encounter dozens of people each day...hundreds each week...etc. Sure, there's some redundancy, but there's more than a little variety. I got to the point a couple-few years ago I disabled notifications because of all the different group texts I ended up a part of amidst all of my various bubbles. Of course I haven't talked with all of them about this situation, but given where I live it's come up with a high level of frequency. And I can count on one hand the amount of people that fit the...**ahem**...perspectives...mentioned above. And I live in the one place in which there should be more of those you're citing than anywhere else in the world.

I get it, this is an internet message board. Social media is where outliers go to spread their message. All I'm saying is to maintain that perspective - that they're outliers. And amplifying the outlier message is counter productive. Beware of the small sample size and the bias within one's bubble always reigns supreme, but I think it's reasonable to be skeptical the buckets of people referenced above represent anything more than an extreme minority.

 

[MAC_32]

From what I have seen this week, the argument Goodell and the league is trying to make is that Watson violated the PCP with 4 different women. So in their mind, they should have the right to discipline him x 4. I do agree with Robinson in that the PCP and CBA is riddled with holes in terms of what is covered and clearly defined or not. If the penalty for inappropriate acts is 6 games, it almost seems like you could commit the same act 100 times and still only get 6 games. We will have to see the revised ruling to see if the league was granted the right to count each case separately.

The way I read Robinson's opinion, she's saying the norm for violent sexual assault is six games. The max so far for non-violent sexual assault has been three games. But she doubled that for Watson for a few reasons, mainly because his offense was repeated multiple times.

So she did take into account the repeated offenses.

Agreed - and based on the language she used within her opinion I think it's fair to assume she thinks the punishment should be harsher than what she ruled. Her ruling was just (heavily?) influenced by the guardrails in place based on the NFL's prior decision making.

 

[Anarchy99]

From what I have seen this week, the argument Goodell and the league is trying to make is that Watson violated the PCP with 4 different women. So in their mind, they should have the right to discipline him x 4. I do agree with Robinson in that the PCP and CBA is riddled with holes in terms of what is covered and clearly defined or not. If the penalty for inappropriate acts is 6 games, it almost seems like you could commit the same act 100 times and still only get 6 games. We will have to see the revised ruling to see if the league was granted the right to count each case separately.

The way I read Robinson's opinion, she's saying the norm for violent sexual assault is six games. The max so far for non-violent sexual assault has been three games. But she doubled that for Watson for a few reasons, mainly because his offense was repeated multiple times.

So she did take into account the repeated offenses.

I am aware that she factored some of that in, but I was just mentioning what I had heard the league's position / argument is. Seemingly, since Watson's actions were egregious, the league is ready to call that a 6-game suspension for the first act and then somehow imposing an escalator for having multiple infractions. Since the language in the PCP is murky and there is no definition or past precedent in recent years (certainly not since the new PCP arbitration process was instituted), the Watson case is new territory. I don't remember there being an NFL case labeled as non-violent sexual assault before.

Robinson cited fair notice, but there hasn't been a prior case in the past 10 years that involved multiple incidents (and the current world view has changed dramatically on incidents involving women). The CBA and PCP has consistently stated punishment was at the discretion of the commissioner, so IMO that really hasn't changed any (and the NFLPA has agreed to that over and over again). It wouldn't shock me if Harvey increased the suspension to 10-12 games . . . or if he gave the league a full season (with or without an indefinite suspension clause).

As we've seen this case play out, it certainly seems like it helps the league more than the player. Once Robinson declared Watson violated the PCP, the league took that and ran with it. Since the language makes the appealed decision binding, that should only strengthen the league's position in PCP penalties moving forward. The arbiter's punishment recommendation could be rendered moot while the violation of the PCP becomes inarguable (no new evidence or arguments made once the discipline officer rules).

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

From what I have seen this week, the argument Goodell and the league is trying to make is that Watson violated the PCP with 4 different women. So in their mind, they should have the right to discipline him x 4. I do agree with Robinson in that the PCP and CBA is riddled with holes in terms of what is covered and clearly defined or not. If the penalty for inappropriate acts is 6 games, it almost seems like you could commit the same act 100 times and still only get 6 games. We will have to see the revised ruling to see if the league was granted the right to count each case separately.

The way I read Robinson's opinion, she's saying the norm for violent sexual assault is six games. The max so far for non-violent sexual assault has been three games. But she doubled that for Watson for a few reasons, mainly because his offense was repeated multiple times.

So she did take into account the repeated offenses.

From the statement, it sounded like Goodell also took issue with the predatory nature of the incidents. That Watson not only sexually assaulted women, but that he actively plotted, and executed his plans to sexually harass them. He called this out explicitly. Maybe that’s why he wants a longer suspension.

Or maybe he just didn’t like Watson’s approach to this whole thing. Watson was offered a pretty fair compromise by some accounts, and rejected it. Now Watson wants that compromise in the 11th hour? Good luck with that.

Or maybe Goodell thought Justice wasn’t served in TX when the DA failed to get what now almost certainly sounds like a layup of an indictment. Clearly they had enough evidence, per Sue Robinson.

Of course that last bit is speculation - I’m not sure how committed to criminal Justice Goodell is, but at least in the court of public opinion it’s a bit grating. It’s pretty obvious at this point that Watson got away with criminal sexual assault. It’s a bad look.

 

[Anarchy99]

From what I have seen this week, the argument Goodell and the league is trying to make is that Watson violated the PCP with 4 different women. So in their mind, they should have the right to discipline him x 4. I do agree with Robinson in that the PCP and CBA is riddled with holes in terms of what is covered and clearly defined or not. If the penalty for inappropriate acts is 6 games, it almost seems like you could commit the same act 100 times and still only get 6 games. We will have to see the revised ruling to see if the league was granted the right to count each case separately.

The way I read Robinson's opinion, she's saying the norm for violent sexual assault is six games. The max so far for non-violent sexual assault has been three games. But she doubled that for Watson for a few reasons, mainly because his offense was repeated multiple times.

So she did take into account the repeated offenses.

From the statement, it sounded like Goodell also took issue with the predatory nature of the incidents. That Watson not only sexually assaulted women, but that he actively plotted, and executed his plans to sexually harass them. He called this out explicitly. Maybe that’s why he wants a longer suspension.

Or maybe he just didn’t like Watson’s approach to this whole thing. Watson was offered a pretty fair compromise by some accounts, and rejected it. Now Watson wants that compromise in the 11th hour? Good luck with that.

Or maybe Goodell thought Justice wasn’t served in TX when the DA failed to get what now almost certainly sounds like a layup of an indictment. Clearly they had enough evidence, per Sue Robinson.

Of course that last bit is speculation - I’m not sure how committed to criminal Justice Goodell is, but at least in the court of public opinion it’s a bit grating. It’s pretty obvious at this point that Watson got away with criminal sexual assault. It’s a bad look.

A common theme I saw being reported was the league took issue and umbrage with Watson not accepting responsibility, showing no remorse, and insisting he did not do anything wrong. That really didn't sit well with the league, and it seems like they are almost going over the top in what they are asking for based on Watson's insistence that everything he did was above board and not worthy of any discipline.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Amplifying the voices on an extreme is counter productive.

This thread has 12 channels integrated with modulated amplification.
The extreme faction has two tools in their toolbox.
Their pitchforks and torches.
Self-righteousness Internet outrage is the economic commodity of the day.

This is hilarious. Which camp are you in by the way? This is all a bunch of fuss about nothing?

He left out “the victim blamers”, the “anti-woke police”, the “stick my fingers in my ears and run around screaming ‘Watson did nothing wrong, La, La, La’ “ crowd as well.

Amplifying the voices on an extreme is counter productive.

You lack context.

I doubt it. We're probably just approaching this from two different lenses. Based on what you're sharing you are giving the impression that a significant % are victim blamers, fingers in ears, zero game suspensions, anti woke police (...what?), etc. This was in response to citing self righteous internet outrage. Our media feeds both of these perspectives because they're the loudest and their sources engage substantially more than everyone else, which increases profits.

The lens I'm referring to is from that of 'everyone else.' Now, how wide is my net? Like any normal person, miniscule. I listen to and read media, but in relatively small doses and from multiple sources. I encounter dozens of people each day...hundreds each week...etc. Sure, there's some redundancy, but there's more than a little variety. I got to the point a couple-few years ago I disabled notifications because of all the different group texts I ended up a part of amidst all of my various bubbles. Of course I haven't talked with all of them about this situation, but given where I live it's come up with a high level of frequency. And I can count on one hand the amount of people that fit the...**ahem**...perspectives...mentioned above. And I live in the one place in which there should be more of those you're citing than anywhere else in the world.

I get it, this is an internet message board. Social media is where outliers go to spread their message. All I'm saying is to maintain that perspective - that they're outliers. And amplifying the outlier message is counter productive. Beware of the small sample size and the bias within one's bubble always reigns supreme, but I think it's reasonable to be skeptical the buckets of people referenced above represent anything more than an extreme minority.

No, I was just pointing out that in like most discussions there's loonies on both sides. It was in response to a point that the only extreme views were coming from the pitchfork laden mob. Ultimately, you are right though, it wasn't even worth responding to in he first place which is why I let it end.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

From what I have seen this week, the argument Goodell and the league is trying to make is that Watson violated the PCP with 4 different women. So in their mind, they should have the right to discipline him x 4. I do agree with Robinson in that the PCP and CBA is riddled with holes in terms of what is covered and clearly defined or not. If the penalty for inappropriate acts is 6 games, it almost seems like you could commit the same act 100 times and still only get 6 games. We will have to see the revised ruling to see if the league was granted the right to count each case separately.

The way I read Robinson's opinion, she's saying the norm for violent sexual assault is six games. The max so far for non-violent sexual assault has been three games. But she doubled that for Watson for a few reasons, mainly because his offense was repeated multiple times.

So she did take into account the repeated offenses.

From the statement, it sounded like Goodell also took issue with the predatory nature of the incidents. That Watson not only sexually assaulted women, but that he actively plotted, and executed his plans to sexually harass them. He called this out explicitly. Maybe that’s why he wants a longer suspension.

Or maybe he just didn’t like Watson’s approach to this whole thing. Watson was offered a pretty fair compromise by some accounts, and rejected it. Now Watson wants that compromise in the 11th hour? Good luck with that.

Or maybe Goodell thought Justice wasn’t served in TX when the DA failed to get what now almost certainly sounds like a layup of an indictment. Clearly they had enough evidence, per Sue Robinson.

Of course that last bit is speculation - I’m not sure how committed to criminal Justice Goodell is, but at least in the court of public opinion it’s a bit grating. It’s pretty obvious at this point that Watson got away with criminal sexual assault. It’s a bad look.

A common theme I saw being reported was the league took issue and umbrage with Watson not accepting responsibility, showing no remorse, and insisting he did not do anything wrong. That really didn't sit well with the league, and it seems like they are almost going over the top in what they are asking for based on Watson's insistence that everything he did was above board and not worthy of any discipline.

Well to be fair there was still active litigation going on the whole time, so he really couldn't go on an apology tour yet.

 

[Gally]

From what I have seen this week, the argument Goodell and the league is trying to make is that Watson violated the PCP with 4 different women. So in their mind, they should have the right to discipline him x 4. I do agree with Robinson in that the PCP and CBA is riddled with holes in terms of what is covered and clearly defined or not. If the penalty for inappropriate acts is 6 games, it almost seems like you could commit the same act 100 times and still only get 6 games. We will have to see the revised ruling to see if the league was granted the right to count each case separately.

The way I read Robinson's opinion, she's saying the norm for violent sexual assault is six games. The max so far for non-violent sexual assault has been three games. But she doubled that for Watson for a few reasons, mainly because his offense was repeated multiple times.

So she did take into account the repeated offenses.

Or maybe Goodell thought Justice wasn’t served in TX when the DA failed to get what now almost certainly sounds like a layup of an indictment. Clearly they had enough evidence, per Sue Robinson.

Of course that last bit is speculation - I’m not sure how committed to criminal Justice Goodell is, but at least in the court of public opinion it’s a bit grating. It’s pretty obvious at this point that Watson got away with criminal sexual assault. It’s a bad look.

Is the burden different for the criminal case vs this NFL-centric review based on the PCP? I would guess it is different so the bolded isn't necessarily true.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Actually even now to avoid possible perjury charges* he may not be able to express remorse directly.

*if possible

 

[Dr. Octopus]

From what I have seen this week, the argument Goodell and the league is trying to make is that Watson violated the PCP with 4 different women. So in their mind, they should have the right to discipline him x 4. I do agree with Robinson in that the PCP and CBA is riddled with holes in terms of what is covered and clearly defined or not. If the penalty for inappropriate acts is 6 games, it almost seems like you could commit the same act 100 times and still only get 6 games. We will have to see the revised ruling to see if the league was granted the right to count each case separately.

The way I read Robinson's opinion, she's saying the norm for violent sexual assault is six games. The max so far for non-violent sexual assault has been three games. But she doubled that for Watson for a few reasons, mainly because his offense was repeated multiple times.

So she did take into account the repeated offenses.

Or maybe Goodell thought Justice wasn’t served in TX when the DA failed to get what now almost certainly sounds like a layup of an indictment. Clearly they had enough evidence, per Sue Robinson.

Of course that last bit is speculation - I’m not sure how committed to criminal Justice Goodell is, but at least in the court of public opinion it’s a bit grating. It’s pretty obvious at this point that Watson got away with criminal sexual assault. It’s a bad look.

Is the burden different for the criminal case vs this NFL-centric review based on the PCP? I would guess it is different so the bolded isn't necessarily true.

This is a rhetorical question right?
ETA: I'm joking, but of course it is.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

From what I have seen this week, the argument Goodell and the league is trying to make is that Watson violated the PCP with 4 different women. So in their mind, they should have the right to discipline him x 4. I do agree with Robinson in that the PCP and CBA is riddled with holes in terms of what is covered and clearly defined or not. If the penalty for inappropriate acts is 6 games, it almost seems like you could commit the same act 100 times and still only get 6 games. We will have to see the revised ruling to see if the league was granted the right to count each case separately.

The way I read Robinson's opinion, she's saying the norm for violent sexual assault is six games. The max so far for non-violent sexual assault has been three games. But she doubled that for Watson for a few reasons, mainly because his offense was repeated multiple times.

So she did take into account the repeated offenses.

Or maybe Goodell thought Justice wasn’t served in TX when the DA failed to get what now almost certainly sounds like a layup of an indictment. Clearly they had enough evidence, per Sue Robinson.

Of course that last bit is speculation - I’m not sure how committed to criminal Justice Goodell is, but at least in the court of public opinion it’s a bit grating. It’s pretty obvious at this point that Watson got away with criminal sexual assault. It’s a bad look.

Is the burden different for the criminal case vs this NFL-centric review based on the PCP? I would guess it is different so the bolded isn't necessarily true.

From what I understand about GJs, it’s rather easy to get an indictment if the evidence is presented.

Clearly Sue Robinson saw evidence that GJ didn’t. Her statements definitely lend credence to the detective’s statement that the GJ didn’t see the evidence. Recall that detective said she absolutely saw criminal behavior.

So whatever evidence Robinson & that detective (and Goodell) had seen would seem to meet whichever standard.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

From what I have seen this week, the argument Goodell and the league is trying to make is that Watson violated the PCP with 4 different women. So in their mind, they should have the right to discipline him x 4. I do agree with Robinson in that the PCP and CBA is riddled with holes in terms of what is covered and clearly defined or not. If the penalty for inappropriate acts is 6 games, it almost seems like you could commit the same act 100 times and still only get 6 games. We will have to see the revised ruling to see if the league was granted the right to count each case separately.

The way I read Robinson's opinion, she's saying the norm for violent sexual assault is six games. The max so far for non-violent sexual assault has been three games. But she doubled that for Watson for a few reasons, mainly because his offense was repeated multiple times.

So she did take into account the repeated offenses.

Or maybe Goodell thought Justice wasn’t served in TX when the DA failed to get what now almost certainly sounds like a layup of an indictment. Clearly they had enough evidence, per Sue Robinson.

Of course that last bit is speculation - I’m not sure how committed to criminal Justice Goodell is, but at least in the court of public opinion it’s a bit grating. It’s pretty obvious at this point that Watson got away with criminal sexual assault. It’s a bad look.

Is the burden different for the criminal case vs this NFL-centric review based on the PCP? I would guess it is different so the bolded isn't necessarily true.

From what I understand about GJs, it’s rather easy to get an indictment if the evidence is presented.

Clearly Sue Robinson saw evidence that GJ didn’t. Her statements definitely lend credence to the detective’s statement that the GJ didn’t see the evidence. Recall that detective said she absolutely saw criminal behavior.

So whatever evidence Robinson & that detective had seen would seem to meet whichever standard.

But even if its easy to get the indictment, the DA has to think about whether he could meet the criminal standard at trial. These cases are very tough on that standard.

 

[Gally]

From what I have seen this week, the argument Goodell and the league is trying to make is that Watson violated the PCP with 4 different women. So in their mind, they should have the right to discipline him x 4. I do agree with Robinson in that the PCP and CBA is riddled with holes in terms of what is covered and clearly defined or not. If the penalty for inappropriate acts is 6 games, it almost seems like you could commit the same act 100 times and still only get 6 games. We will have to see the revised ruling to see if the league was granted the right to count each case separately.

The way I read Robinson's opinion, she's saying the norm for violent sexual assault is six games. The max so far for non-violent sexual assault has been three games. But she doubled that for Watson for a few reasons, mainly because his offense was repeated multiple times.

So she did take into account the repeated offenses.

Or maybe Goodell thought Justice wasn’t served in TX when the DA failed to get what now almost certainly sounds like a layup of an indictment. Clearly they had enough evidence, per Sue Robinson.

Of course that last bit is speculation - I’m not sure how committed to criminal Justice Goodell is, but at least in the court of public opinion it’s a bit grating. It’s pretty obvious at this point that Watson got away with criminal sexual assault. It’s a bad look.

Is the burden different for the criminal case vs this NFL-centric review based on the PCP? I would guess it is different so the bolded isn't necessarily true.

From what I understand about GJs, it’s rather easy to get an indictment if the evidence is presented.

Clearly Sue Robinson saw evidence that GJ didn’t. Her statements definitely lend credence to the detective’s statement that the GJ didn’t see the evidence. Recall that detective said she absolutely saw criminal behavior.

So whatever evidence Robinson & that detective (and Goodell) had seen would seem to meet whichever standard.

The point is there is more to prosecuting a criminal case and for whatever reason (likely being he said/she said with no tangible evidence like a video) that your original bolded statement isn't meaningful. Two different standards that are vastly different to "prove".

 

[Anarchy99]

From what I have seen this week, the argument Goodell and the league is trying to make is that Watson violated the PCP with 4 different women. So in their mind, they should have the right to discipline him x 4. I do agree with Robinson in that the PCP and CBA is riddled with holes in terms of what is covered and clearly defined or not. If the penalty for inappropriate acts is 6 games, it almost seems like you could commit the same act 100 times and still only get 6 games. We will have to see the revised ruling to see if the league was granted the right to count each case separately.

The way I read Robinson's opinion, she's saying the norm for violent sexual assault is six games. The max so far for non-violent sexual assault has been three games. But she doubled that for Watson for a few reasons, mainly because his offense was repeated multiple times.

So she did take into account the repeated offenses.

Or maybe Goodell thought Justice wasn’t served in TX when the DA failed to get what now almost certainly sounds like a layup of an indictment. Clearly they had enough evidence, per Sue Robinson.

Of course that last bit is speculation - I’m not sure how committed to criminal Justice Goodell is, but at least in the court of public opinion it’s a bit grating. It’s pretty obvious at this point that Watson got away with criminal sexual assault. It’s a bad look.

Is the burden different for the criminal case vs this NFL-centric review based on the PCP? I would guess it is different so the bolded isn't necessarily true.

From what I understand about GJs, it’s rather easy to get an indictment if the evidence is presented.

Clearly Sue Robinson saw evidence that GJ didn’t. Her statements definitely lend credence to the detective’s statement that the GJ didn’t see the evidence. Recall that detective said she absolutely saw criminal behavior.

So whatever evidence Robinson & that detective (and Goodell) had seen would seem to meet whichever standard.

It's above my pay grade, but apparently there were elements of Texas law that made it more difficult to get a GJ indictment than other states. I don't remember what the explanation was, other than the process or requirements were more stringent.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

From what I have seen this week, the argument Goodell and the league is trying to make is that Watson violated the PCP with 4 different women. So in their mind, they should have the right to discipline him x 4. I do agree with Robinson in that the PCP and CBA is riddled with holes in terms of what is covered and clearly defined or not. If the penalty for inappropriate acts is 6 games, it almost seems like you could commit the same act 100 times and still only get 6 games. We will have to see the revised ruling to see if the league was granted the right to count each case separately.

The way I read Robinson's opinion, she's saying the norm for violent sexual assault is six games. The max so far for non-violent sexual assault has been three games. But she doubled that for Watson for a few reasons, mainly because his offense was repeated multiple times.

So she did take into account the repeated offenses.

Or maybe Goodell thought Justice wasn’t served in TX when the DA failed to get what now almost certainly sounds like a layup of an indictment. Clearly they had enough evidence, per Sue Robinson.

Of course that last bit is speculation - I’m not sure how committed to criminal Justice Goodell is, but at least in the court of public opinion it’s a bit grating. It’s pretty obvious at this point that Watson got away with criminal sexual assault. It’s a bad look.

Is the burden different for the criminal case vs this NFL-centric review based on the PCP? I would guess it is different so the bolded isn't necessarily true.

From what I understand about GJs, it’s rather easy to get an indictment if the evidence is presented.

Clearly Sue Robinson saw evidence that GJ didn’t. Her statements definitely lend credence to the detective’s statement that the GJ didn’t see the evidence. Recall that detective said she absolutely saw criminal behavior.

So whatever evidence Robinson & that detective had seen would seem to meet whichever standard.

But even if its easy to get the indictment, the DA has to think about whether he could meet the criminal standard at trial. These cases are very tough on that standard.

A fair point. They also must have the will to prosecute, which seems would be difficult to ascertain the difference.

I wish I lived in a world where the wealthy and powerful did not get away with things because of that sort of ambiguity, but because we do I’m often skeptical about these types of situations.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I don't remember there being an NFL case labeled as non-violent sexual assault before.

Jameis Winston comes to mind. I believe there have been others.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Or maybe Goodell thought Justice wasn’t served in TX when the DA failed to get what now almost certainly sounds like a layup of an indictment. Clearly they had enough evidence, per Sue Robinson.

This is not true at all. Robinson did not find that Watson probably violated any criminal statute.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Or maybe he just didn’t like Watson’s approach to this whole thing. Watson was offered a pretty fair compromise by some accounts, and rejected it. Now Watson wants that compromise in the 11th hour? Good luck with that.

Or maybe Goodell thought Justice wasn’t served in TX when the DA failed to get what now almost certainly sounds like a layup of an indictment. Clearly they had enough evidence, per Sue Robinson.

If either of these becomes the basis for additional punishment, it will be overturned in court for sure.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

From what I have seen this week, the argument Goodell and the league is trying to make is that Watson violated the PCP with 4 different women. So in their mind, they should have the right to discipline him x 4. I do agree with Robinson in that the PCP and CBA is riddled with holes in terms of what is covered and clearly defined or not. If the penalty for inappropriate acts is 6 games, it almost seems like you could commit the same act 100 times and still only get 6 games. We will have to see the revised ruling to see if the league was granted the right to count each case separately.

The way I read Robinson's opinion, she's saying the norm for violent sexual assault is six games. The max so far for non-violent sexual assault has been three games. But she doubled that for Watson for a few reasons, mainly because his offense was repeated multiple times.

So she did take into account the repeated offenses.

Or maybe Goodell thought Justice wasn’t served in TX when the DA failed to get what now almost certainly sounds like a layup of an indictment. Clearly they had enough evidence, per Sue Robinson.

Of course that last bit is speculation - I’m not sure how committed to criminal Justice Goodell is, but at least in the court of public opinion it’s a bit grating. It’s pretty obvious at this point that Watson got away with criminal sexual assault. It’s a bad look.

Is the burden different for the criminal case vs this NFL-centric review based on the PCP? I would guess it is different so the bolded isn't necessarily true.

From what I understand about GJs, it’s rather easy to get an indictment if the evidence is presented.

Clearly Sue Robinson saw evidence that GJ didn’t. Her statements definitely lend credence to the detective’s statement that the GJ didn’t see the evidence. Recall that detective said she absolutely saw criminal behavior.

So whatever evidence Robinson & that detective (and Goodell) had seen would seem to meet whichever standard.

The point is there is more to prosecuting a criminal case and for whatever reason (likely being he said/she said with no tangible evidence like a video) that your original bolded statement isn't meaningful. Two different standards that are vastly different to "prove".

Totally understand that, and it’s a valid point. It does however seem like there was more evidence than simply “he said/she” said based on Goodell and Sue Robinson‘s statements.

That has me revisiting the GJ. And yes, as I’d said before, it’s speculation. In a just world, I wouldn’t be suspicious of that DA.

You at least have to concede the possibility of corruption.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

but hey, let's trot out the multi spousal abuser, multi accused rapist Jim Brown out there as the friggin face of the NFL. LOl. just oozes hypocrisy. Robert Kraft got caught with his pants down in a massage parlor apparently harassing the girls who put the oil on his back,etc. but that scumbag gets off without a charge? wtf is going on with the NFL. Ray Rice carrer ruined. Jim Brown beats the **** out of a number of women, attempts to rape or actually does rape but victims refuse to testify because he trheatens to beat the **** out of them, and he's introducing player at the NFL draft, gets cushy meet-n-greet gigs the NFL sponsors. any one of you who has a jim brown signed shirt,hat,helmet, football should be ****ing ashamed of yourself for condoning this scumbag in his thug career of violence and reported, repeated rapes.*allegedly*

What do you mean by "harassing"...is there evidence that he put them in a position they didn't want to be in...?..."harassed" girls"....what exactly does that mean when you say it like you did....did he somehow force them into a rub and tug.....?....or was it consensual and basically a business deal...?

Does it really matter? Do we think he got caught at a strip mall rub'n'tug by accident? Some kind of innocent mistake?

He went there for an Old Fashioned and got popped. The league has codified, in writing, that owners are to be held to a higher standard. Clearly that isn't the reality.

Watson is a predatory ######-### who deserves more punishment than he will receive, but Kraft is no innocent and should have been held accountable for participating in human sex trafficking.

if people think what Watson did is the same as Kraft....not much you can say.....I don't remember hearing anything about Kraft "harassing" the girls....

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

But even if its easy to get the indictment, the DA has to think about whether he could meet the criminal standard at trial. These cases are very tough on that standard.

True, but it wasn't the DA who dropped the case. It was the grand jury.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

if people think what Watson did is the same as Kraft....not much you can say.....I don't remember hearing anything about Kraft "harassing" the girls....

I agree, but the Watson-Kraft comparison cuts both ways. Kraft was indicted; Watson wasn't.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Or maybe Goodell thought Justice wasn’t served in TX when the DA failed to get what now almost certainly sounds like a layup of an indictment. Clearly they had enough evidence, per Sue Robinson.

This is not true at all. Robinson did not find that Watson probably violated any criminal statute.

I thought she made comments to the effect of having enough evidence to establish that there was sexual assault?

Goodell certainly said that.

Maybe I misread - my bad, if so. I certainly don’t want to perpetuate a falsehood.

 

[Gally]

Totally understand that, and it’s a valid point. It does however seem like there was more evidence than simply “he said/she” said based on Goodell and Sue Robinson‘s statements.

That has me revisiting the GJ. And yes, as I’d said before, it’s speculation. In a just world, I wouldn’t be suspicious of that DA.

You at least have to concede the possibility of corruption.

"Possibility" is very vague. Could someone that I don't know anything about be corrupt?......I suppose so. But I wouldn't say that this situation leads me to that conclusion or even come up with that as a possible reason for not getting an indictment. The more likely scenario is that the DA didn't think there was any chance they could win in a criminal case based on the burden of proof. That is the single biggest hurdle for 99% of all sexual assault cases. There is an extremely hard burden to prove when there isn't tangible evidence like a video.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

But even if its easy to get the indictment, the DA has to think about whether he could meet the criminal standard at trial. These cases are very tough on that standard.

True, but it wasn't the DA who dropped the case. It was the grand jury.

But a GJ drops a case based on the evidence the DA presents, no?

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

There is an extremely hard burden to prove when there isn't tangible evidence like a video.

Totally understand that, and it’s a valid point. It does however seem like there was more evidence than simply “he said/she” said based on Goodell and Sue Robinson‘s statements.

That has me revisiting the GJ. And yes, as I’d said before, it’s speculation. In a just world, I wouldn’t be suspicious of that DA.

You at least have to concede the possibility of corruption.

"Possibility" is very vague. Could someone that I don't know anything about be corrupt?......I suppose so. But I wouldn't say that this situation leads me to that conclusion or even come up with that as a possible reason for not getting an indictment. The more likely scenario is that the DA didn't think there was any chance they could win in a criminal case based on the burden of proof. That is the single biggest hurdle for 99% of all sexual assault cases. There is an extremely hard burden to prove when there isn't tangible evidence like a video.

Fair.

We don’t actually know that there isn’t video, but again, speculation.