From Dawg Pound to Bills Mafia - Browns Fans Leaving for the Bills

[finn]

On 3/19/2022 at 5:17 AM, GunnerBill said:

 

Not only not enough evidence to convict.... not enough evidence to give any reasonable prospect of conviction. That is why the grand jury didn't indict. Does that mean nothing happened? No, it doesn't but really what I believe is irrelevant. I believe that the justice system while imperfect is the best option we have for determining innocence and guilt and it is certainly better than the court of public opinion. I have spent most of the last 15 years of my career researching justice system models, looking at systems worldwide and advising governments of all political persuasions in the UK on justice system reform. I am deeply concerned about a growing trend in society towards mob mentality, driven by social media, and the court of public opinion with no checks, no balances, no objective standards replacing the justice system in terms of assessing guilt and driving punishment. 

 

And as to your final sentence, I say this honestly and sincerely, no I wouldn't. You either stand by your principles and your belief in the system or you don't. I do. However difficult the case. Indeed in a case in which a member of my family is involved currently where they have been left in an unfortunate situation (not a sexual assault  and I understand the particular sensitivity around such allegations) I have said to them that I cannot in good conscience support their position because from a pure legal perspective it doesn't make sense.

 

 

Respectfully, that is not for you to decide. That is for a court to decide. 

 

 

EDIT: And just to be clear I have said from pretty much the start of this story that I believe there is something to the allegations. But what I believe is not in any way a substitute for legal due process. A court of law decides on guilt or innocence (and on liability in civil matters) not the court of public opinion. On that point I am afraid I am totally immovable. 

Not sure I understand your meaning. You "believe there is something to the allegations" and remind us a court of law "decides on guilt or innocence." Of course it's up to a court of law to make a legal determination; who is saying otherwise? That's not the point. The legal system is deeply flawed and very often--maybe usually--it gets it wrong, especially in sexual assault cases. Brock Turner, Woody Allen, Brett Kavanaugh... the list is endless. Are you saying Browns fans shouldn't "believe" the 22 credible allegations from unrelated women--while giving yourself that option? Or that they shouldn't, what, buy tickets? Object? Arrest and charge him in the streets? What are you saying here? 

[GunnerBill]

7 minutes ago, finn said:

Not sure I understand your meaning. You "believe there is something to the allegations" and remind us a court of law "decides on guilt or innocence." Of course it's up to a court of law to make a legal determination; who is saying otherwise? That's not the point. The legal system is deeply flawed and very often--maybe usually--it gets it wrong, especially in sexual assault cases. Brock Turner, Woody Allen, Brett Kavanaugh... the list is endless. Are you saying Browns fans shouldn't "believe" the 22 credible allegations from unrelated women--while giving yourself that option? Or that they shouldn't, what, buy tickets? Object? Arrest and charge him in the streets? What are you saying here? 

 

My initial point was simply that the move towards the court of public opinion over and above the courts of law (which are not infallible but get a lot more right than wrong) is one that genuinely and seriously concerns me - and that pre-dates and goes beyond this particular case. 

 

People are entitled to believe what they wish and make decisions about they spend their money accordingly. I have been clear throughout on that point. I would not, however, support a "societal sanction" of barring a person from continuing with their career when they remain in the eyes of the law an innocent person. 

Edited March 20, 2022 by GunnerBill

[AuntieEm]

12 minutes ago, finn said:

Not sure I understand your meaning. You "believe there is something to the allegations" and remind us a court of law "decides on guilt or innocence." Of course it's up to a court of law to make a legal determination; who is saying otherwise? That's not the point. The legal system is deeply flawed and very often--maybe usually--it gets it wrong, especially in sexual assault cases. Brock Turner, Woody Allen, Brett Kavanaugh... the list is endless. Are you saying Browns fans shouldn't "believe" the 22 credible allegations from unrelated women--while giving yourself that option? Or that they shouldn't, what, buy tickets? Object? Arrest and charge him in the streets? What are you saying here? 

 

    I think he's saying a person that hasn't been convicted in a court of law should not be ostracized by the society to where they can no longer find employment.  That alone would cause more problems as desperate people (some totally innocent but being punished unjustly) start behaving less civilized in their attempts to just survive.  Those that truly are guilty aren't suddenly gonna turn into angels though of course there will be some cases of redemption from among the guilty.  End results likely adding to the pool of people that prey on the law abiding.  The United States prison system doesn't seem to really focus on rehabilitation but just segregation.  

[BananaB]

17 hours ago, Process said:

It's one thing to trade for him. 

 

But giving a guy facing 22 civil lawsuits and a definite suspension, who hasn't played in a year, a pay raise and a FULLY GUARANTEED $250M contract is absolute insanity.

Basically giving him 43 million signing bonus to go push this under the rug. That’s the way I see it. 

[AuntieEm]

4 minutes ago, BananaB said:

Basically giving him 43 million signing bonus to go push this under the rug. That’s the way I see it. 

  

   It sure seems like they are.  And if there are no offsets that can nullify the guarantee then Clevelynd Browns should be held just as accountable as Watson.  

 

   

[finn]

40 minutes ago, AuntieEm said:

 

    I think he's saying a person that hasn't been convicted in a court of law should not be ostracized by the society to where they can no longer find employment.  That alone would cause more problems as desperate people (some totally innocent but being punished unjustly) start behaving less civilized in their attempts to just survive.  Those that truly are guilty aren't suddenly gonna turn into angels though of course there will be some cases of redemption from among the guilty.  End results likely adding to the pool of people that prey on the law abiding.  The United States prison system doesn't seem to really focus on rehabilitation but just segregation.  

 

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

My initial point was simply that the move towards the court of public opinion over and above the courts of law (which are not infallible but get a lot more right than wrong) is one that genuinely and seriously concerns me - and that pre-dates and goes beyond this particular case. 

 

People are entitled to believe what they wish and make decisions about they spend their money accordingly. I have been clear throughout on that point. I would not, however, support a "societal sanction" of barring a person from continuing with their career when they remain in the eyes of the law an innocent person. 

Ok. But when do expressions of the public's moral outrage start rising to the level of the "societal sanctions" you deplore? For example, is a boycott of Browns games a societal sanction, or merely a decision of how people spend their money? If it's wrong for the NFL to ban Watson from playing, is it wrong for the Lady's Library Club to disinvite him from a speaking engagement? Both are societal sanctions, aren't they?

 

My point is that it's not easy to locate what defines a morally just response to this sort of behavior (or "alleged behavior"). There are no rules. Our society just mooches along, figuring it out en masse in an imperfect, inconsistent, contradictory, messy devil's brew of reason, bias, and emotion. Much like our legal system, unfortunately. 

[oldmanfan]

On 3/19/2022 at 5:31 AM, GunnerBill said:

 

I don't believe 22 women are making it up either. But what I believe, what you believe, what anyone believes is irrelevant. We do not get to assess guilt or liability. There is a system and a process for that. Once you start saying "ah yes but in this case..." then you open any case up to others taking the same approach because they believe in something different. The justice system is imperfect, but it is a million times preferable to the court of public opinion. 

I defer to your legal expertise, but wonder if having a grand jury in Texas, where conservatism and fealty to football abound, had anything to do with the failure to find criminal liability.

[without a drought]

I think it'll be alright, they just brought in Michael Vick as a QB consultant and PR guy.

[AuntieEm]

1 minute ago, finn said:

 

Ok. But when do expressions of the public's moral outrage start rising to the level of the "societal sanctions" you deplore? For example, is a boycott of Browns games a societal sanction, or merely a decision of how people spend their money? If it's wrong for the NFL to ban Watson from playing, is it wrong for the Lady's Library Club to disinvite him from a speaking engagement? Both are societal sanctions, aren't they?

 

My point is that it's not easy to locate what defines a morally just response to this sort of behavior (or "alleged behavior"). There are no rules. Our society just mooches along, figuring it out en masse in an imperfect, inconsistent, contradictory, messy devil's brew of reason, bias, and emotion. Much like our legal system, unfortunately. 

   I have 0 problem with the fans boycotting the Browns over this.  I do not judge Watson innocent or guilty the allegations are ugly and there is the whole I did have some consensual sex with some does put into question what occurred.  I could just as easily find some of the claimants just as questionable as to their honesty and or motives. 

 

   However to guarantee a full contract like his for that amount is totally crazy.  I could jump to a conclusion that it's perhaps a payoff.  Let's say Watson is and always has been innocent but the allegations were an attempt to keep Watson in Houston and at a substantially lower cost due to the damage to his reputation.  

Maybe Watson has some evidence that is just as believable as the accusers stories that makes it very likely the Oilers were engaging in underhanded tactics.  I don't put such occurrences out of the possibility whenever there's that much money involved.  

 

   Any future masseuse approached by Watson would be well within their rights to insist on having another person in the room for safety.  If Watson is an innocent person he's gonna be perfectly fine with that may even be his requirement.  If he rejects that as a condition the masseuse just declined the job no harm done.

[GunnerBill]

40 minutes ago, finn said:

 

Ok. But when do expressions of the public's moral outrage start rising to the level of the "societal sanctions" you deplore? For example, is a boycott of Browns games a societal sanction, or merely a decision of how people spend their money? If it's wrong for the NFL to ban Watson from playing, is it wrong for the Lady's Library Club to disinvite him from a speaking engagement? Both are societal sanctions, aren't they?

 

My point is that it's not easy to locate what defines a morally just response to this sort of behavior (or "alleged behavior"). There are no rules. Our society just mooches along, figuring it out en masse in an imperfect, inconsistent, contradictory, messy devil's brew of reason, bias, and emotion. Much like our legal system, unfortunately. 

 

See I disagree. I think there are rules. There are fundamental principles of our system we must protect. I take the point about there being levels of things you could describe as social sanctions, but I would definitely differentiate between those things that are universally recognised in modern western democracies as fundamental - including one's ability to earn a living - and the "nice to haves." 

[finn]

48 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

See I disagree. I think there are rules. There are fundamental principles of our system we must protect. I take the point about there being levels of things you could describe as social sanctions, but I would definitely differentiate between those things that are universally recognised in modern western democracies as fundamental - including one's ability to earn a living - and the "nice to haves." 

I do think most people would agree that Watson should be able to play football, at least somewhere (I suggest Canada). But I wouldn't let him work in my daughter's school, even though I probably couldn't stop him legally. "Rules" work both ways. 

[Jay_Fixit]

Nah. Don’t want em and won’t accept em.

[Warcodered]

 

[Warcodered]

 

[PatsFanNH]

On 3/19/2022 at 1:07 AM, Utah John said:

Cleveland is desperate, that's the only way to look at this.  They had the overall #1 and got a QB that deserved to be a Day 2 pick.  They now give up three MORE 1st rounders to get a QB.  At the same time they're having trouble holding on to the talent they already assembled.  They still have Myles Garrett, two great RBs, and have traded for an aging Amari Cooper.  But not having 1st rounders is a killer in a salary cap era, where the key to success is drafting good players who are cheap for the first four or five years.  Watson is an excellent QB but the team is eating its seed corn now and will starve later.

 

Plus they're in a division with Burrow and Lamar Jackson.  And Trubisky who is a lot better than Chicago made him look.  Success this year for Cleveland is NOT guaranteed, and their future looks doubtful.

 

Desperation makes people and teams do very doubtful things.  

Burrows is the only other legit QB IMO. Jackson has regressed every year since he was MVP, and is a runner more than a thrower. Trubisky was a mistake for Chicago be the same for Pitt who has 1 receiver. 

[GoBills808]

5 hours ago, AuntieEm said:

 

    I think he's saying a person that hasn't been convicted in a court of law should not be ostracized by the society to where they can no longer find employment.  That alone would cause more problems as desperate people (some totally innocent but being punished unjustly) start behaving less civilized in their attempts to just survive.  Those that truly are guilty aren't suddenly gonna turn into angels though of course there will be some cases of redemption from among the guilty.  End results likely adding to the pool of people that prey on the law abiding.  The United States prison system doesn't seem to really focus on rehabilitation but just segregation.  

So where was he when the Raiders cut Ruggs before he got sentenced?

[GunnerBill]

42 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

So where was he when the Raiders cut Ruggs before he got sentenced?

 

Ruggs was arrested immediately and indicted within a week. Watson has never been arrested in relation to the allegations and was not indicted. And I was here the whole of last season arguing Watson should been under a formal NFL suspension while a criminal investigation to him was ongoing. I thought leaving it to the strange nod and a wink arrangement the NFL and Houston seemingly had was wrong given the seriousness of the allegations and frankly bizarre. 

[UKBillFan]

5 hours ago, finn said:

 

Ok. But when do expressions of the public's moral outrage start rising to the level of the "societal sanctions" you deplore? For example, is a boycott of Browns games a societal sanction, or merely a decision of how people spend their money? If it's wrong for the NFL to ban Watson from playing, is it wrong for the Lady's Library Club to disinvite him from a speaking engagement? Both are societal sanctions, aren't they?

 

My point is that it's not easy to locate what defines a morally just response to this sort of behavior (or "alleged behavior"). There are no rules. Our society just mooches along, figuring it out en masse in an imperfect, inconsistent, contradictory, messy devil's brew of reason, bias, and emotion. Much like our legal system, unfortunately. 

 

The NFL is Watson's key source of employment; the Lady's Library Club and attendance would be invite only, and probably voluntary, so two different cases. The NFL wouldn't be able to ban Watson outright on the grounds of innocent until proven guilty but franchises, should they have wished to do so, could have 'black-balled' him akin to the treatment of Kaepernick. The Browns decided not to.

 

I think Watson is a nasty piece of work but I don't think the NFL are in a position to ban him from signing for teams at this stage.

[HappyDays]

8 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Ruggs was arrested immediately and indicted within a week. Watson has never been arrested in relation to the allegations and was not indicted. And I was here the whole of last season arguing Watson should been under a formal NFL suspension while a criminal investigation to him was ongoing. I thought leaving it to the strange nod and a wink arrangement the NFL and Houston seemingly had was wrong given the seriousness of the allegations and frankly bizarre. 

 

Watson still has civil cases pending. It is not true that he has been exonerated. My guess is he will ultimately settle with all of his accusers, but does that change your thinking at all? Being civilly liable for sexual assault is arguably still a good enough reason for the NFL to shun him. That standard of proof is usually what is used in employment cases.

2 minutes ago, UKBillFan said:

I think Watson is a nasty piece of work but I don't think the NFL are in a position to ban him from signing for teams at this stage.

 

The NFL/Roger Goodell can do pretty much whatever they want. That was upheld by courts in the Tom Brady suspension case. If Goodell wants to indefinitely suspend Watson he has the ability to do that.

[UKBillFan]

2 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

Watson still has civil cases pending. It is not true that he has been exonerated. My guess is he will ultimately settle with all of his accusers, but does that change your thinking at all? Being civilly liable for sexual assault is arguably still a good enough reason for the NFL to shun him. That standard of proof is usually what is used in employment cases.

 

The NFL/Roger Goodell can do pretty much whatever they want. That was upheld by courts in the Tom Brady suspension case. If Goodell wants to indefinitely suspend Watson he has the ability to do that.

 

I personally think Watson would push back, and quite heavily, if they tried at this stage. I think Goodell is waiting for the outcome of the civil case and will then make the decision. The Browns have seemingly decided they couldn't care less.