Prickly Pete Posted February 16, 2020 Posted February 16, 2020 2 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said: The victimization is strong with this one. Not nearly as strong as with you.
Buffalo716 Posted February 16, 2020 Posted February 16, 2020 4 minutes ago, NoSaint said: no, Rudolph would need to prove that Garrett knowingly did this to harm him. That Garrett could simply argue he must’ve misheard makes this a silly uphill climb to pursue short of someone coming forward with info that Garrett made it up. as the plaintiff the burden is on Rudolph in this hypothetical case. He was wacked in the head with an object , that's technically assault No matter what he said to Garret you cannot retaliate with violence
Augie Posted February 16, 2020 Posted February 16, 2020 3 minutes ago, NoSaint said: no, Rudolph would need to prove that Garrett knowingly did this to harm him. That Garrett could simply argue he must’ve misheard makes this a silly uphill climb to pursue short of someone coming forward with info that Garrett made it up. I know we have some lawyers here. Who wants to be the Judge Judy of TBD? I don’t know what the standards are here. Who wants to go out on a limb (or at least give us a clue)?
NoSaint Posted February 16, 2020 Posted February 16, 2020 1 minute ago, Buffalo716 said: He was wacked in the head with an object , that's technically assault No matter what he said to Garret you cannot retaliate with violence im assuming said case he hypothesized about regarding the slur was referring to defamation, as I agree you can’t just assault the guy regardless of whether he said it
Augie Posted February 16, 2020 Posted February 16, 2020 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said: He was wacked in the head with an object , that's technically assault No matter what he said to Garret you cannot retaliate with violence I repeat..... Do we have a Judge Judy out there? Happens all the time in sports. I know there was a precedent in the NHL at one point, but don’t recall the details. . Edited February 16, 2020 by Augie
NoSaint Posted February 16, 2020 Posted February 16, 2020 1 minute ago, Augie said: I know we have some lawyers here. Who wants to be the Judge Judy of TBD? I don’t know what the standards are here. Who wants to go out on a limb (or at least give us a clue)? to sue someone for defamation you have to prove that what they said was knowingly said as an intentional untruth that caused harm. so Rudolph would need to produce something like a text between Garrett and someone regarding lying about it for instance. 1
Buffalo716 Posted February 16, 2020 Posted February 16, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Augie said: I repeat..... Do we have a Judge Judy out there? Happens all the time in sports. I know there was a precedent in the NHL at one point, but don’t recall the details. . In not taking either side Augie but I played organized football at a high level for 15 years and never saw that live It could've killed him Edited February 16, 2020 by Buffalo716 1
NoSaint Posted February 16, 2020 Posted February 16, 2020 2 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said: In not taking either side Augie but I played organized football at a high level for 15 years and never saw that live It could've killed him what age did you start playing high level organized football?
DrDawkinstein Posted February 16, 2020 Posted February 16, 2020 12 minutes ago, Augie said: I repeat..... Do we have a Judge Judy out there? Happens all the time in sports. I know there was a precedent in the NHL at one point, but don’t recall the details. . The NHL players WERE charged. This happened at least a few times and they were charged and convicted. Back when it happened, I thought Myles had crossed the line to where he could have been charged. But Im sure there is no way Roger would allow that kind of bad press for the league. https://toronto.citynews.ca/2016/02/09/some-notable-on-ice-incidents-that-led-to-criminal-charges/ 1
Augie Posted February 16, 2020 Posted February 16, 2020 5 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said: In not taking either side Augie but I played organized football at a high level for 15 years and never saw that live It could've killed him Oh, I agree! I’m serious, I think an NHL player faced criminal charges for something that happened on the ice. Didn’t another guy get suspended until his “victim” was healthy enough to play again?
Buffalo716 Posted February 16, 2020 Posted February 16, 2020 (edited) 12 minutes ago, NoSaint said: what age did you start playing high level organized football? I played from the age of 5 through college football Travel football started at 7-8 for me It got hyper competitive at 11 Edited February 16, 2020 by Buffalo716
DrDawkinstein Posted February 16, 2020 Posted February 16, 2020 1 minute ago, Augie said: Oh, I agree! I’m serious, I think an NHL player faced criminal charges for something that happened on the ice. Didn’t another guy get suspended until his “victim” was healthy enough to play again? From the article I linked... The outcome: Bertuzzi was suspended for the remainder of the season plus seven playoff games, totaling 20 games. Bertuzzi was charged with criminal assault causing bodily harm. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to one year probation and 80 hours of community service. Moore subsequently sued Bertuzzi and the Canucks, reaching a settlement a decade after the incident. The outcome: McSorley was found guilty of assault with a weapon and was sentenced to 18 months probation. The outcome: Ciccarelli was charged and convicted of assault. He was fined $1,000 and sentenced to one day in jail. We're talking criminal records and jail time. Even if it's one day, still. That would be pretty huge. Kudos to the NHL for not trying to sweep the bad incidents under the rug. Now, someone just got suspended for kicking another player. I always thought skates could be easily used as a weapon. Will be interesting to see what comes of that. 1
bobobonators Posted February 16, 2020 Posted February 16, 2020 20 minutes ago, NoSaint said: to sue someone for defamation you have to prove that what they said was knowingly said as an intentional untruth that caused harm. so Rudolph would need to produce something like a text between Garrett and someone regarding lying about it for instance. Yup.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted February 16, 2020 Posted February 16, 2020 29 minutes ago, Augie said: I know we have some lawyers here. Who wants to be the Judge Judy of TBD? I don’t know what the standards are here. Who wants to go out on a limb (or at least give us a clue)? I’m just the local “Redneck woman” ?. Let me hear a big HELL YEAH for all the Redneck girls like me. HELL YEAH! Seriously: Some pretty good info here tho https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/02/15/mason-rudolphs-lawyer-strongly-hints-that-myles-garrett-will-be-sued/ Key section: Of course, because Rudolph is a public figure, he’ll need to prove that Garrett acted with actual malice. And it will take more than Younger using the term “maliciously” in his statement. Under the law, “actual malice” arises in the defamation context when the person utter a false statement with actual knowledge that the statement is false or with reckless disregard to whether or not the statement is true or false. The argument would (or at least could) be that Garrett made the public claim that Rudolph uttered a racial slur knowing that Rudolph previously had denied it and knowing that the NFL, which has microphones blanketing the field, had no evidence of it. Even if Garrett subjectively believes he heard it, at some point he needs to consider the broader evidence and ask himself whether he simply believes he heard something that wasn’t said.
Buffalo716 Posted February 16, 2020 Posted February 16, 2020 16 minutes ago, Augie said: Oh, I agree! I’m serious, I think an NHL player faced criminal charges for something that happened on the ice. Didn’t another guy get suspended until his “victim” was healthy enough to play again? There has been some CRAZY stuff to happen in hockey Todd Berruzzi.... World class scumbag
whatdrought Posted February 16, 2020 Posted February 16, 2020 37 minutes ago, NoSaint said: no, Rudolph would need to prove that Garrett knowingly did this to harm him. That Garrett could simply argue he must’ve misheard makes this a silly uphill climb to pursue short of someone coming forward with info that Garrett made it up. as the plaintiff the burden is on Rudolph in this hypothetical case. This article does a good job breaking down the situation, I think: https://www.si.com/nfl/2020/02/15/mason-rudolph-myles-garrett-possible-lawsuit-steelers-browns While it's true that Rudolph has to prove the defamation, he need only do so through a preponderance of evidence. From the Article: Quote Rudolph would need to prove slander by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning “more likely than not.” As exists right now, (at least in the public record) there is more evidence that suggests Rudolph did not say it, vs evidence that says he did. It is not an open and shut case, but short of any additional revelations, it would be hard, I think, for Garrett to prove that it happened - specifically since he waited multiple days to make it public.
Augie Posted February 16, 2020 Posted February 16, 2020 6 minutes ago, whatdrought said: This article does a good job breaking down the situation, I think: https://www.si.com/nfl/2020/02/15/mason-rudolph-myles-garrett-possible-lawsuit-steelers-browns While it's true that Rudolph has to prove the defamation, he need only do so through a preponderance of evidence. From the Article: As exists right now, (at least in the public record) there is more evidence that suggests Rudolph did not say it, vs evidence that says he did. It is not an open and shut case, but short of any additional revelations, it would be hard, I think, for Garrett to prove that it happened - specifically since he waited multiple days to make it public. And THIS is why I asked for an actual attorney with actual knowledge. It’s far more complicated than a google search of some states rules and a night in a Holiday Inn Express. 1
Hapless Bills Fan Posted February 16, 2020 Posted February 16, 2020 13 minutes ago, whatdrought said: This article does a good job breaking down the situation, I think: https://www.si.com/nfl/2020/02/15/mason-rudolph-myles-garrett-possible-lawsuit-steelers-browns While it's true that Rudolph has to prove the defamation, he need only do so through a preponderance of evidence. From the Article: As exists right now, (at least in the public record) there is more evidence that suggests Rudolph did not say it, vs evidence that says he did. It is not an open and shut case, but short of any additional revelations, it would be hard, I think, for Garrett to prove that it happened - specifically since he waited multiple days to make it public. Good article; not sure I see how the conclusion will be supported by just yapping about it: Rudolph wants to signal to the football community—and the companies that might one day want to sign him to endorsement deals—that he is a good person. Garrett, meanwhile, wants to signal that he is telling the truth. Both can accomplish their goals without facing off in court. 11 minutes ago, Buffalo619 said: Since when did insults equal violence? Is he saying he is justified for his out of control behavior because of a racial slur? I hope he gets suspended again and sued for this You can’t fix stupid, what an idiot. Insults don’t excuse violence, of course. TBH, I’m not sure what Garrett wishes to accomplish. My best take is that he deeply personally feels what he believes he heard, and the fact that he’s been portrayed as the out-of-control unprovoked “bad guy” is eating on him. There is no basis for suspending here, none, Nada. But he’s probably Jerry Hughes’d himself; he will not get the benefit of the doubt in any future incidents, the book will be thrown.
whatdrought Posted February 16, 2020 Posted February 16, 2020 4 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: Good article; not sure I see how the conclusion will be supported by just yapping about it: Rudolph wants to signal to the football community—and the companies that might one day want to sign him to endorsement deals—that he is a good person. Garrett, meanwhile, wants to signal that he is telling the truth. Both can accomplish their goals without facing off in court. Yeah, not sure how they expect that to happen... It's a pretty black or white situation at this point. Either Rudolph said the racist thing, or Garrett is a liar. Neither of them will truly be "made whole" without something definitive- though that's probably unlikely. I think if Garrett hadn't doubled down there's a chance it's all in the past and done, but claiming it again seems more likely to bring about further action. 1
Call_Of_Ktulu Posted February 16, 2020 Posted February 16, 2020 2 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: I dunno, K-9. I've read up on other "True Crime" type accounts where part of the investigation was driven by perception of how the individual SHOULD have behaved....sometimes that means something, but sometimes it doesn't. The bottom line, though, is it was already brought up by Garrett and denied by Rudolph and the Steelers players who were in the vicinity right after Garrett appealed the suspension and initially made his claim. Unless it's recorded somewhere, it's a he-said he-said thing and I don't know what can be done besides let it go and move on. Maybe @BarleyNY is correct in what (I think he) implied that it's actually recorded and the NFL is suppressing it but Man! they got some high-powered suppression game if so. Lie detector test on national tv will make Garrett look like a complete moron. My brother in law is a US Marshal and I went with him on a ride along and actually got to test out the lie detector. I was lying just to see if it would pick up on it and it did 100%.
Recommended Posts