Mr. WEO Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 He admitted he threw a punch but it didn't land. Ostensibly he threw it to get the cop off his friend. Whose hands he saw around his friend's neck. Big Ben had 2 sexual assault charges and he settled them both. As a result, he got suspended. He had a prior history, regardless of whether they were money grabs (and this isn't?) or not. Shady has no history of assaulting people, much less settling. LOL! Sure you don't want to see him suspended. But I'll come out and ask you point blank: do you think Shady should be suspended? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice. I don't think he should but the point you have been arguing is that he can't be suspended. This is clearly wrong, as was your understanding of what constitutes assault, as is your conclusion about Big Ben "settling" with his accusers. Your points are either factually wrong, fabricated or (in the Big Ben case) clearly disingenuous.
Mr. WEO Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 You're arguing semantics. Rog can't reasonably suspend Shady. I've said that Rog could try to suspend him, but it won't stick and thus it's a waste of time and would be another embarrassment for him. As for Roethlisberger, you might want to reacquaint yourself with the facts there. He was accused of sexual assault twice, and settled twice. The history was there, it happened again, and he got suspended. Yes he settled twice, and the facts of the cases were as I stated. I really don't have to explain why a guy in his position would prefer to settle even in cases where the charges were dropped or, in the first one, never even mentioned to police. To refresh your memory, you said that since the DA said he didn't have enough of a case to get a conviction (and hence didn't charge), that was enough to prevent Goodell from suspending--and then you bizarrely claimed that the NFLPA could put the DA on the witness stand at an appeal. I pointed out to you that the Ben DA used the exact same words to describe why he would not bring charges, yet Ben was suspended anyway. If he appealed, would the NFLPA have put that DA on the witness stand as well? BR's first "rape" case was not even a criminal complaint. It was a blatant shakedown but a nut. Goodell could see this as well. That leaves the "second" case", which, just like McCoys was never charged--and for the same exact reason. Goodell suspended BR due to the public outcry. He did the same thing to Ray Rice after the outcry over the initial 2 game suspension and the video. You know all this but you pretend not to.
Doc Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 Yes he settled twice, and the facts of the cases were as I stated. I really don't have to explain why a guy in his position would prefer to settle even in cases where the charges were dropped or, in the first one, never even mentioned to police. To refresh your memory, you said that since the DA said he didn't have enough of a case to get a conviction (and hence didn't charge), that was enough to prevent Goodell from suspending--and then you bizarrely claimed that the NFLPA could put the DA on the witness stand at an appeal. I pointed out to you that the Ben DA used the exact same words to describe why he would not bring charges, yet Ben was suspended anyway. If he appealed, would the NFLPA have put that DA on the witness stand as well? BR's first "rape" case was not even a criminal complaint. It was a blatant shakedown but a nut. Goodell could see this as well. That leaves the "second" case", which, just like McCoys was never charged--and for the same exact reason. Goodell suspended BR due to the public outcry. He did the same thing to Ray Rice after the outcry over the initial 2 game suspension and the video. You know all this but you pretend not to. Actually the 2nd case went nowhere because the accuser dropped charges since she didn't want to go through a trial, and also likely because she got a settlement. But she never stopped maintaining that she had been raped. In this case, the accusers, i.e. the cops, were looking for charges until the bitter end, and the DA wasn't having any of it because they couldn't even get their stories straight, which I find the most amazing part (one of them had to have had a conscience and told the truth). Huge difference right there. Another huge difference is that this was an NFL player against cops and their union. Not some 20-year old nobody. If the DA determined Shady's group was more to blame for what happened, someone would have been charged. And the biggest difference is that violence against women is something that would lead to public outcry. The only one (still) crying about this incident is the FOP prez.
Mr. WEO Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 Actually the 2nd case went nowhere because the accuser dropped charges since she didn't want to go through a trial, and also likely because she got a settlement. But she never stopped maintaining that she had been raped. In this case, the accusers, i.e. the cops, were looking for charges until the bitter end, and the DA wasn't having any of it because they couldn't even get their stories straight, which I find the most amazing part (one of them had to have had a conscience and told the truth). Huge difference right there. Another huge difference is that this was an NFL player against cops and their union. Not some 20-year old nobody. If the DA determined Shady's group was more to blame for what happened, someone would have been charged. And the biggest difference is that violence against women is something that would lead to public outcry. The only one (still) crying about this incident is the FOP prez. Again (and again) you are wrong. These are the DA's words: "Had she not taken that position ... I would still be announcing the same result. Based on the evidence here, we don't have enough evidence to prosecute. I know when I have a case, and I know when I don't. And I don't have enough evidence to convince 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Roethlisberger would be guilty of a crime of rape." Sound familiar? Anyway, it had nothing to do with a settlement, mainly because there wasn't one at that time. As for "reading between the lines" of what DA is "really" saying, this guy made it easy: "We do not prosecute morals," Mr. Bright said. "We prosecute crimes." and: "Everybody could be criticized for their actions that night. I'm not condoning what he did," Mr. Bright said. "There was too much drinking going on." and: "If he were my son, [i would say], 'Ben, grow up. Come on, you're supposed to stand for something. I mean, you're a leader, you should be a role model. You don't need to put yourself in this position anymore." And she always maintained she was raped, you say? Hasn't it occurred to you that she doesn't get paid if she admits she wasn't raped? After a month of no charges being brought, she figured out what was coming and then told the DA drop the charges for a case where he clearly didn't think a crime had been committed.
Doc Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 Again (and again) you are wrong. These are the DA's words: "Had she not taken that position ... I would still be announcing the same result. Based on the evidence here, we don't have enough evidence to prosecute. I know when I have a case, and I know when I don't. And I don't have enough evidence to convince 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Roethlisberger would be guilty of a crime of rape." Sound familiar? Anyway, it had nothing to do with a settlement, mainly because there wasn't one at that time. As for "reading between the lines" of what DA is "really" saying, this guy made it easy: "We do not prosecute morals," Mr. Bright said. "We prosecute crimes." and: "Everybody could be criticized for their actions that night. I'm not condoning what he did," Mr. Bright said. "There was too much drinking going on." and: "If he were my son, [i would say], 'Ben, grow up. Come on, you're supposed to stand for something. I mean, you're a leader, you should be a role model. You don't need to put yourself in this position anymore." And she always maintained she was raped, you say? Hasn't it occurred to you that she doesn't get paid if she admits she wasn't raped? After a month of no charges being brought, she figured out what was coming and then told the DA drop the charges for a case where he clearly didn't think a crime had been committed. Obviously the girl was drunk so the DA couldn't prove that she didn't consent to having sex, if they had sex at all. I don't know for sure why Rog suspended Big Ben, but it's very possible the NFL launched their own investigation and he believed she was raped, and he took into account the earlier incident. To dismiss that out of hand is silly. But I still fail to see what these 2 situations have in common? There is almost nothing on Shady here, other than a grainy video seeming to show him throwing a punch, but unclear as to whether he hit anyone. And the punch he threw was so weak it's doubtful it would have even caused a bruise, while his hands didn't have any signs of trauma. Since the DA didn't see fit to charge him with "assault" based on the video of him throwing a punch, it obviously wasn't assault. What else do you think Rog can suspend him over? "Making the NFL look bad...trying to defend a friend"? Again, good luck getting that one to stick, if he's stupid enough to suspend him over it.
FireChan Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 Obviously the girl was drunk so the DA couldn't prove that she didn't consent to having sex, if they had sex at all. I don't know for sure why Rog suspended Big Ben, but it's very possible the NFL launched their own investigation and he believed she was raped, and he took into account the earlier incident. To dismiss that out of hand is silly. But I still fail to see what these 2 situations have in common? There is almost nothing on Shady here, other than a grainy video seeming to show him throwing a punch, but unclear as to whether he hit anyone. And the punch he threw was so weak it's doubtful it would have even caused a bruise, while his hands didn't have any signs of trauma. Since the DA didn't see fit to charge him with "assault" based on the video of him throwing a punch, it obviously wasn't assault. What else do you think Rog can suspend him over? "Making the NFL look bad...trying to defend a friend"? Again, good luck getting that one to stick, if he's stupid enough to suspend him over it. Huh? By being intoxicated, she couldn't consent,
3rdand12 Posted April 8, 2016 Posted April 8, 2016 Ranch? That's a fireable offense! Put him on the Rack! AND his feet to the fire! he will confess. and renounce his grievous error.
Nanker Posted April 8, 2016 Posted April 8, 2016 Put him on the Rack! AND his feet to the fire! he will confess. and renounce his grievous error. Absolutely!
YoloinOhio Posted April 8, 2016 Posted April 8, 2016 Has Marshall ever been suspended for this incident? http://deadspin.com/the-eerie-silence-around-the-brandon-marshall-trial-1769710665?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
3rdand12 Posted April 8, 2016 Posted April 8, 2016 Absolutely! Another trip back in time. Great scene.
26CornerBlitz Posted April 9, 2016 Posted April 9, 2016 Better than being chased by cops. @Fischer_Inst @MylesJack getting early #NFL training by chasing @CutonDime25 LeSean McCoy @Fischer_Inst ! #Heisback #NFLDraft https://twitter.com/i/videos/tweet/718537272686039040?embed_source=clientlib&player_id=3&rpc_init=1
Deranged Rhino Posted April 9, 2016 Posted April 9, 2016 Better than being chased by cops. @Fischer_Inst @MylesJack getting early #NFL training by chasing @CutonDime25 LeSean McCoy @Fischer_Inst ! #Heisback #NFLDraft https://twitter.com/i/videos/tweet/718537272686039040?embed_source=clientlib&player_id=3&rpc_init=1 That's awesome. But now makes me want them to trade up for Jack even more.
purple haze Posted April 9, 2016 Posted April 9, 2016 That's awesome. But now makes me want them to trade up for Jack even more. I'm with you on that one. If for some strange reason there are a few surprises in the top 7 and Jack gets to 9, maybe they could work something. I don't think he'd get past the Giants though.
FireChan Posted April 11, 2016 Posted April 11, 2016 (edited) Ian Rapoport @RapSheet 40s41 seconds ago Sources: #Bills RB LeSean McCoy not expected to face @NFL discipline for his role in nightclub altercation. NFL investigation still ongoing. Ian Rapoport @RapSheet 14s14 seconds ago #Bills planned all offseason for some sort of LeSean McCoy suspension. With lack of evidence in his altercation, expected to be available Edited April 11, 2016 by FireChan
26CornerBlitz Posted April 11, 2016 Posted April 11, 2016 No shocker here! Good news! Paging Mr. Weo.
FireChan Posted April 11, 2016 Posted April 11, 2016 No shocker here! Good news! Paging Mr. Weo. Who said he could be charged. Which is still debatable. #scoop
26CornerBlitz Posted April 11, 2016 Posted April 11, 2016 @theMMQB New: @AndrewBrandt on how the latest court ruling confirms, solidifies Goodell’s power http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2016/04/11/nfl-roger-goodell-court-ruling-confirms-discipline-power-exempt-list In a somewhat related matter.
26CornerBlitz Posted April 11, 2016 Posted April 11, 2016 McCoy unlikely to face league discipline for bar brawl LeSean McCoy's connection to an offseason bar brawl is unlikely to cost him any time on the field in 2016. NFL Media Insider Ian Rapoport reported Monday, citing two sources with knowledge of the situation, that the star running back is not expected to face NFL discipline for his role in the nightclub altercation that involved off-duty police officers in Philadelphia.
Recommended Posts