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

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

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.

 

Nope.

[purple haze]

32 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.

If Watson is not criminally convicted the NFL is not going to shun him.  That’s what the league was waiting for. Is there a chance he might go to jail?  As soon as teams knew his availability wasn’t at stake, the deal happened.

 

I’m always amazed that people are surprised in these instances.  Watson holds unique skills in an exclusive profession.   In that profession, only winning/money are paramount.   Multiple teams bid, the team that guaranteed the most money won out.  That’s the capitalism people love so much.  It only cares about making more money.  Does Watson hurt the Browns’ bottom line?   I doubt it.

 

Ben Roethlisberger had 2 rape allegations against him and only got suspended 6 games.  The number of allegations against Watson are stunning, but none of those allegations, from my understanding, accuse him of an actual rape. (Not to say the things he’s accused of aren’t serious. They are very serious).  That’s why I don’t think Goodell is going to suspend him for a year.  I’d guess 10 games or so.

 

This will be an issue where people will have to decide how much they can roll with or not.  The NFL most likely won’t give people the satisfaction they want.   Watson will play eventually.  The stadium will be full and the Browns might have some success.  Easy for people to walk away now.  Harder to stay away come September.

[Doc Brown]

2 minutes ago, Billschinatown said:

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. 

He had his best season statistically by a mile in 2020 without Hopkins.  4,822 yards, 33 TD's, 7 INT's, 112.4 passer rating.  I guess you could use the garbage time argument but he's a damn good qb.  I think he's a garbage human being but can't deny the Browns just put themselves in Super Bowl contention over the next few years.

[HappyDays]

47 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

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. 

 

The system is just designed to limit the ability of the government to punish individuals. That's all. It isn't designed to act as a stand in for every individual's or organization's standards of judgment. That's where our gap in this argument stems from. You seem to think "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a standard that governs all of our judgments as a society. That has never been the case. It isn't even true in every legal scenario which is why I brought up civil law where the standard is merely "more likely than not." Organizations make decisions about individuals all the time without resorting to the criminal law standard of judgment.

 

From your posts on this subject I gather that this talking point is very personal to your job and I think that's clouding your judgment. There's nothing wrong with upholding legal principles in a legal setting. In legal settings everything has to be black and white. I wouldn't want Deshaun Watson to be treated any differently than anyone else in a court setting. The burden of proof to throw him in a government prison should be extremely high and I recognize that while it's frustrating an obvious predator won't be punished to the fullest extent of the law, we have that burden to make sure innocent people don't go to prison. But as an individual I don't have to abide by those black and white principles and I won't. NFL teams don't have to either. Just about everyone who has reviewed the available evidence, yourself included, agrees that the totality of the accusations is credible and it is likely that Watson engaged in predatory behavior at the very least. I haven't seen anyone try to argue otherwise. If NFL teams denied him the ability to play pro football as a result of that judgment his rights would not be denied. Playing in the NFL is a privilege. The standards used for an individual to have that privilege are not the criminal law standard.

 

Edited March 20, 2022 by HappyDays

[WotAGuy]

39 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.

Maybe because people like you keep asking him to explain himself over and over and over, when it’s very clear what his points are. But the points seem to go over heads time and again. 

[AuntieEm]

2 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

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

    

   First there's little similarity between the Ruggs drunk driving accident which killed a woman and her dog and I'm pretty sure there's alot of evidence that shows Ruggs being the one responsible for the accident. I also do not recall Ruggs proclaiming his innocence.  So I have no idea what you expect the OP to take a similar stand as the Watson allegations.   I also am not sure why you are asking me where the ops stand is on that case I have no clue what his take is on that. I'd assume that provided he got proper legal council in his trial then justice prevailed as much as it can considering in that case the wronged party lost their lives due to Ruggs' actions. There's never been any question as far as I know that Ruggs was drunk driving and speeding slamming into the other car.  If there was a ny improper procedure in Ruggs' trial I certainly expect the OP ( I'm assuming the OP is the he you are referring to otherwise I haven't a clue as to as who that male person is), I'd think he would also would expect Ruggs to have the right to a fair trial and appropriate punishment when he was found guilty. Are you implying that Ruggs was unjustly convicted?

 

   

[GoBills808]

3 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:

Maybe because people like you keep asking him to explain himself over and over and over, when it’s very clear what his points are. But the points seem to go over heads time and again. 

But this very obscure legal concept of innocent until proven guilty is so difficult for me to grasp!

Just now, AuntieEm said:

    

   First there's little similarity between the Ruggs drunk driving accident which killed a woman and her dog and I'm pretty sure there's alot of evidence that shows Ruggs being the one responsible for the accident. I also do not recall Ruggs proclaiming his innocence.  So I have no idea what you expect the OP to take a similar stand as the Watson allegations.   I also am not sure why you are asking me where the ops stand is on that case I have no clue what his take is on that. I'd assume that provided he got proper legal council in his trial then justice prevailed as much as it can considering in that case the wronged party lost their lives due to Ruggs' actions. There's never been any question as far as I know that Ruggs was drunk driving and speeding slamming into the other car.  If there was a ny improper procedure in Ruggs' trial I certainly expect the OP ( I'm assuming the OP is the he you are referring to otherwise I haven't a clue as to as who that male person is), I'd think he would also would expect Ruggs to have the right to a fair trial and appropriate punishment when he was found guilty. Are you implying that Ruggs was unjustly convicted?

 

   

😂😂Clearly no. I’m saying it’s asinine to expect that the standard for folks having an opinion on someone’s conduct is whether they were found guilty in court or not.

[WotAGuy]

5 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

But this very obscure legal concept of innocent until proven guilty is so difficult for me to grasp!

😂😂Clearly no. I’m saying it’s asinine to expect that the standard for folks having an opinion on someone’s conduct is whether they were found guilty in court or not.

 

[The Wiz]

I really need to catch up on my recorded episodes of Judge Judy.

[BillsFanNC]

8 hours 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? 

 

Or Hunter Biden. 

 

Not PPP worthy for the bolded right?

Edited March 20, 2022 by BillsFanNC

[Warcodered]

 

[TBBills]

1 hour ago, Mike in Horseheads said:

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

I mean Browns are a worse dumpster fire than the Bills ever were. 

[finn]

41 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

Or Hunter Biden. 

 

Not PPP worthy for the bolded right?

No objection. Except, is Hunter a sexual predator? How about Bill Cosby? Woody Allen is also a creepy liberal. But then I think of Clarence Thomas, and I'm back listing creepy Republicans, sorry. 

[vincec]

On 3/19/2022 at 10:53 AM, GunnerBill said:

 

It is a principle of the law that governs society and therefore the principle is embedded in the governance of a nation. It is established in case law in the US developed out of the interpretation of your written constitution. 

 

Browns fans are entitled to believe what they wish. Their belief is an irrelevance. 

I think the fact that this is being discussed with such passion, and not just on TBD, shows that this is patently false. There are brand and therefore financial implications to the fans beliefs.

[BillsFanNC]

5 minutes ago, finn said:

No objection. Except, is Hunter a sexual predator? How about Bill Cosby? Woody Allen is also a creepy liberal. But then I think of Clarence Thomas, and I'm back listing creepy Republicans, sorry. 

 

Hunter laptop images absolutely bring questions of potential underage sexual activity.

 

Still the Kavanaugh, Hunter and Thomas sexual misconduct allegations are all political hot potatoes more than anything else.

 

Therefore none belong on main board.

 

That was my point.

[finn]

2 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

Hunter laptop images absolutely bring questions of potential underage sexual activity.

 

Still the Kavanaugh, Hunter and Thomas sexual misconduct allegations are all political hot potatoes more than anything else.

 

Therefore none belong on main board.

 

That was my point.

Agreed, too political. I withdraw. 

[John from Riverside]

Always room on the fan train

[AuntieEm]

1 hour ago, vincec said:

I think the fact that this is being discussed with such passion, and not just on TBD, shows that this is patently false. There are brand and therefore financial implications to the fans beliefs.

  

   The Cleveland fans have every right to choose to withdraw their support for the team. 

 

   For arguments sake -- I am not saying this will happen but what if in Cleveland he gets caught engaging in the same types of situations.  Obviously at that point it would be very apparent he is a very sick person and should be committed to a psyche hospital at the very least and then the NFL decides it will suspend him permanently and his guaranteed money is distributed by the civil courts to all his victims and he basically loses much of what he has now.  If it causes financial losses for the league or just the Browns that's on them and certainly serves them right.  If he is indeed a sexual predator he not gonna stop so he'll get caught just depends how well he can cover his tracks now that people are watching closely as to how long before he slips and gets caught.  If he's innocent he won't have future incidents but  he will have to live with the publics perception of his guilt/innocence.  

 

 

Edited March 20, 2022 by AuntieEm

[Batman1876]

Reason 78678 why I love Josh Allen, he made it so that Bills fans never had to worry about Watson becoming a Bill, thanks again Josh. 

[Batman1876]

7 hours 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. 

 

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. 

 

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. 

The UK has the best example of why this sort of tolerance for celebrities is so awful, the UK has Jimmy Savile. Accusations first came out 50 years before he died and were ignored for the rest of his life. After his death investigations started and hundreds of people have co e forward to share their stories of being harmed by him.