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

[GoBills808]

13 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. 

Your standard used to be convicted just 3 pages ago, now it’s arrested. 

[GunnerBill]

4 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.

 

Which is even more reason why the NFL should have been proactive last year. Because they could have suspended him, said he would remain suspended until completion of all legal matters and then at that point instigated their own disciplinary process. It would be odd now to suspend him for the duration of the civil proceedings when a grand jury has declined to indict. 

 

On whether being found liable in civil law would change my view, I don't think so. We have had a similar case in the UK with a mid ranking Scottish footballer, the unfortunately named David Goodwillie, who was not charged with rape by the CPS because of insufficient evidence but was held to be liable for tresspass to the person by a civil court and ordered to pay damages. He re-started his soccer career at a much lower level but was successful and signed by a higher up club only for them to reverse that decision under public pressure. I understand why people were so angry but again I feel instinctively nervous about restricting someone's right to employment on the basis of a civil court decision. It isn't just the standard of proof which us different it is the evidenciary standards, and the purpose of the court that is different too. I speak to judges all the time in my profession and I know senior judges in the UK who sit in the civil jurisdiction who would feel intensely uncomfortable about their decisions being relied on in that way. As one described it to me - the criminal law is about the offense and the alleged perpatrator, the civil law is primarily about restitution to the claimant. Once you start mixing those concepts up you are really getring away from what the system is designed to do. 

 

I would certainly be more understanding of a decision to ban him for life on the basis of a finding against him in civil court. It might ease my discomfort in the sense that there is some sort of legal finding against him (though would not change the fact that in the eyes of the law he would be innocent because innocence is for the criminal courts) but no, I have to be honest it would not totally remove it. 

15 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Your standard used to be convicted just 3 pages ago, now it’s arrested. 

 

My standard has not changed. I was just pointing out that there were important differences. If I was running the league office my policy would be indefinite suspension while under criminal investigation for any tier 1 offense (not sure what the equivalent American term is) and a life ban if convicted. 

[GoBills808]

You just subjected this entire thread to  one of the more inane and stringent interpretations of ‘innocent until proven guilty’, and now it turns out there are important differences. As if everyone doesn’t already know it.

[GunnerBill]

23 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

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.

 

He has to act rationally and within the bounds of his own disciplinary policy but the deflategate case established that his discretion under that policy was extremely broad. Frankly who knows what conversations were had between the Browns and the league office before the trade went down. I suspect we will never know. But I have no doubt that they will have happened. 

 

I don't think Roger has handled it particularly well this far. 

[GoBills808]

Also @GunnerBill you never answered the question: where is your innocent until proven guilty campaign for Henry Ruggs who, much like Watson, had not been convicted of a crime?

[Doc Brown]

6 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

Which is even more reason why the NFL should have been proactive last year. Because they could have suspended him, said he would remain suspended until completion of all legal matters and then at that point instigated their own disciplinary process. It would be odd now to suspend him for the duration of the civil proceedings when a grand jury has declined to indict. 

The league already set the standard with the Roethlisberger decision where no criminal chargers were filed.  Goodell can just suspend him simply by saying a "pattern of behavior using bad judgments" which violates the league's personal conduct policy.  You may not agree that the commissioner should have that much power but that's what the player's union agreed to.

[GunnerBill]

Just now, GoBills808 said:

Also @GunnerBill you never answered the question: where is your innocent until proven guilty campaign for Henry Ruggs who, much like Watson, had not been convicted of a crime?

 

He is also innocent until proven guilty. That is how it works. 

Just now, Doc Brown said:

The league already set the standard with the Roethlisberger decision where no criminal chargers were filed.  Goodell can just suspend him simply by saying a "pattern of behavior using bad judgments" which violates the league's personal conduct policy.  You may not agree that the commissioner should have that much power but that's what the player's union agreed to.

 

No, no I accept and agree that the league has that power. They choose to wait until the end of the process then act. I fully expect and support an NFL disciplinary sanction at the conclusion of events. 

 

I still think they should have acted more proactively while he was under investigation is all. 

[Matt_In_NH]

They will be skid marks again as soon as the season starts. 

[GoBills808]

5 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

He is also innocent until proven guilty. That is how it works. 

So why weren’t you all over the Ruggs thread saying innocent until proven guilty?

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

So why weren’t you all over the Ruggs thread saying innocent until proven guilty?

 

That is irrelevant. The same standard applies. 

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

That is irrelevant. The same standard applies. 

It’s relevant. You are repeating something everyone over the age of 5 already knows. I’m curious as to why you feel so compelled in this particular case.

[RaoulDuke79]

On 3/19/2022 at 5:38 AM, Beach said:

this reminds me of the outrage Philly had when they signed Vick.  the outrage vanished when he started winning.

Facts....winning fixes everything. 

[sonyab1974]

Welcome to the Bills Mafia!!! 🥳

[Doc Brown]

1 minute ago, RaoulDuke79 said:

Facts....winning fixes everything. 

Well, it's the Browns so it's still going to be a problem.  You sold your soul and you still suck?  It'll be similar to that South Park episode where Cartman pretended to be mentally handicapped to get in the Special Olympics and he finished in last place anyways.

[UKBillFan]

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

It’s relevant. You are repeating something everyone over the age of 5 already knows. I’m curious as to why you feel so compelled in this particular case.

 

Just to interject, in the eyes of the law there is no difference between the two at this stage. In the eyes of the NFL the Raiders terminated his contract and no one else has signed him; in comparison the Texans didn't terminate Watson's contract though didn't play him last year and have now traded him to the Browns. As said, the NFL probably should have suspended him from the off and that would have cleared up this mess.

[RaoulDuke79]

1 minute ago, Doc Brown said:

Well, it's the Browns so it's still going to be a problem.  You sold your soul and you still suck?  It'll be similar to that South Park episode where Cartman pretended to be mentally handicapped to get in the Special Olympics and he finished in last place anyways.

That was a great episode. I honestly don't see Watson being a huge game changer. They may have a shot at the division, but that's where the ride ends.

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

It’s relevant. You are repeating something everyone over the age of 5 already knows. I’m curious as to why you feel so compelled in this particular case.

 

I suppose two things - 1. I was likely mkre exposed to the social media reaction and 2. The principle point about my concerns in respect of the dilution of the rule of law is one that is actively exercising me professionally at the moment so it was more immediately top of mind. 

 

I also did not intend to have a 10 page debate, it was one post saying I was uncomfortable, I got challenged on why that was and it ballooned from there. It is a subject on which I feel pretty strongly and I know it is not always a popular position but I enjoy debating it. 

[Billschinatown]

The crazy thing about all of this is that...Deshaun Watson isn't even that good IMO. He only beat the bills on a fluke play in the playoffs. Milano and the other guy hit him at the SAME time and he got stood up. Then he sucked the next season. He's more headache than he's worth. 

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I suppose two things - 1. I was likely mkre exposed to the social media reaction and 2. The principle point about my concerns in respect of the dilution of the rule of law is one that is actively exercising me professionally at the moment so it was more immediately top of mind. 

 

I also did not intend to have a 10 page debate, it was one post saying I was uncomfortable, I got challenged on why that was and it ballooned from there. It is a subject on which I feel pretty strongly and I know it is not always a popular position but I enjoy debating it. 

Let me help you out then- the reason you didn’t feel compelled to defend Ruggs’ expectation of innocent until proven guilty standard is because he very clearly killed those people driving drunk, much like Watson is very clearly a sexual predator. The only difference is your weird insistence on defending one and not the other.

[Mike in Horseheads]

They aren't going anywhere, how many times do people here say "I'm so done with this team"