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

[gordong]

1 minute ago, 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. 

Sorry I disagree as I will always feel Watson is a total pos. And while the justice system is the best we got it’s not perfect. So you think 22 women are not making it up but I should not feel Watson is a pos… sorry man but that’s not going to happen. And Im free to form my own opinion of someone based on my principles and morals.. Im not saying you can’t feel the way you want but I can tell you there’s nothing you will ever say to change my mind either..just the way it is… doesn’t make it right or wrong just makes our point of view different and unlike some politicians that’s okay.

. 

[K D]

3 minutes ago, 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. 

The burden of proof is on the prosecution to convict. They must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that something happened. Sometimes DOUBT is all that needs to be proven, not innocence. Whether that is the best system or not I will trust your research into the subject. However it certainly lends itself to fallacy. There is going to be a gray area where certain truths may be accepted but not prosecutable.

 

In a he said she said (she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said,  she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said) case, in such a unique situation where there are no cameras allowed in the room, it makes it quite difficult to come up with enough evidence to prove guilt and just enough gray area to allow for doubt.

 

He may not be proven guilty in a court of law but morally speaking this is very likely not an innocent man and he is now the face of an entire franchise and the highest paid QB in the world in terms of guaranteed money. He got to go to a better team and got a huge pay raise and meanwhile there are 22+ women who now have to watch their backs and many of whom will likely need to find a new profession. The whole thing feels very wrong to me and I don't doubt that a lot of Cleveland fans, especially females, aren't happy about this.

[GunnerBill]

37 minutes ago, KDIGGZ said:

The burden of proof is on the prosecution to convict. They must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that something happened. Sometimes DOUBT is all that needs to be proven, not innocence. Whether that is the best system or not I will trust your research into the subject. However it certainly lends itself to fallacy. There is going to be a gray area where certain truths may be accepted but not prosecutable.

 

In a he said she said (she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said,  she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said) case, in such a unique situation where there are no cameras allowed in the room, it makes it quite difficult to come up with enough evidence to prove guilt and just enough gray area to allow for doubt.

 

He may not be proven guilty in a court of law but morally speaking this is very likely not an innocent man and he is now the face of an entire franchise and the highest paid QB in the world in terms of guaranteed money. He got to go to a better team and got a huge pay raise and meanwhile there are 22+ women who now have to watch their backs and many of whom will likely need to find a new profession. The whole thing feels very wrong to me and I don't doubt that a lot of Cleveland fans, especially females, aren't happy about this.

 

As I said, justice systems, the models that they use and how the system works is literally my career. I need no lectures on how it works. But the system also depends on a presumption of innocence. You don't have to prove yourself innocent. As you say, the burden is on the prosecution. For no indictment it means not only that there was reasonable doubt but that was no reasonable chance of a conviction. If the grand jury thought the evidence presented gave a reasonable chance of conviction they would have indicted. You are innocent until proven guilty, Deshaun Watson is innocent. You might not like it, you might not believe it, but your belief is irrelevant. 

 

As for moral judgments... yes people are free to make them. People are free to dislike Deshaun Watson. This episode makes him a dislikeable character. But he is fully entitled to continue his career and his life and I will defend until the end his right to do that. Because courts of law decide guilt or liability. Courts of public opinion and people's moral judgments do not. 

41 minutes ago, gordong said:

Sorry I disagree as I will always feel Watson is a total pos. And while the justice system is the best we got it’s not perfect. So you think 22 women are not making it up but I should not feel Watson is a pos… sorry man but that’s not going to happen. And Im free to form my own opinion of someone based on my principles and morals.. Im not saying you can’t feel the way you want but I can tell you there’s nothing you will ever say to change my mind either..just the way it is… doesn’t make it right or wrong just makes our point of view different and unlike some politicians that’s okay.

. 

 

You are allowed to feel whatever you want, as is any uncomfortable Cleveland fan who doesn't want to support him, but they are doing it without a true understanding of the situation and despite there being no criminal charge brought. He is fully entitled to get on with his career as an innocent man. 

[Chandler#81]

5 hours ago, MJS said:

I saw some of this on Reddit. Tons of Browns fans were posting about becoming Bills fans and their disgust with the Browns for trading for Watson.

 

I think, in particular, any female Browns fans will be inclined to leave the team. Tough to root for a serial sexual predator.

Tough? TOUGH ?!? 😲 It’s downright impossible. Even as a guy, I would seriously reconsider my fandom and likely bail on the Bills if they signed him.

1 hour ago, 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. 

Just to be clear, I think your perspective ..well. SUCKS!

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, Chandler#81 said:

 

Just to be clear, I think your perspective ..well. SUCKS!

 

That's fine, I get it. Modern society decides what it thinks and sticks to it whatever. I don't want a society that gets away from the principles of innocent until proven guilty and one that believes in due process. That means standing up for those things (and let me be clear that it is those principles I am standing up for not Deshaun Watson) even when it is unpopular to do so. 

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

1 hour ago, Beach said:

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

You would have gotten an 'insightful'💡from me, but this ain't LinkedIn. 😁

Edited March 19, 2022 by Ridgewaycynic2013
'would have got'...good lord, I am regressing! 😳

[GaryPinC]

17 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

life and I will defend until the end his right to do that. Because courts of law decide guilt or liability. Courts of public opinion and people's moral judgments do not. 

 

You are allowed to feel whatever you want, as is any uncomfortable Cleveland fan who doesn't want to support him, but they are doing it without a true understanding of the situation and despite there being no criminal charge brought. He is fully entitled to get on with his career as an innocent man. 

I certainly respect your research and opinion but would like to point out that the court decided there is not enough evidence to assess his guilt or innocence. That is not the same as saying he's innocent.

You well know cases like this are sadly hard to get convictions on, let alone bring to trial.  Some of us are going to look at 22 victims, their experiences, and determine the justice system cannot adequately address this situation.  And it's not ok he gets to continue his career as an "innocent" man.

[Les Vegetables]

I live in the Cleveland area and the fans I know are unhappy with the Watson trade, but not to the point of turning their backs on the Browns (these fans are proven loyal). If you ever went to a Browns v. Steelers game, the number of T-shirts on the streets calling out Ben Rothlisburg and the rape allegations were astounding. Talk radio would be flooded with fans calling out Ben and asking how the Steelers and the NFL could support such a guy. Now The tables are turned on these same fans and in their view the Browns organization is no different to the hated Steelers as it relates to the topic of alleged rape. It’s a tough pill to swallow for the fans I know and some have joked with me that they will turn to the Bills. I’m sure if the Browns win games, fans will justify Watson’s character, but I’m sure Steelers fans will bring up rape allegations as Browns fans did about Ben and the rivalry will continue to brew. As A Bills fan, I’m glad the Bills seek out character players to the best of their ability. 

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, GaryPinC said:

I certainly respect your research and opinion but would like to point out that the court decided there is not enough evidence to assess his guilt or innocence. That is not the same as saying he's innocent.

You well know cases like this are sadly hard to get convictions on, let alone bring to trial.  Some of us are going to look at 22 victims, their experiences, and determine the justice system cannot adequately address this situation.  And it's not ok he gets to continue his career as an "innocent" man.

 

It is fundamental plank of all major western justice systems that an individual has the right to a presumption of innocence. He is innocent until proven guilty. It doesn't mean nothing happened. But it does mean he is innocent. That is what the court essentially finds when it takes the decision not to indict. 

 

Sexual assault allegations with no third party witnesses are, as you rightly say, difficult to prosecute. But to say "well in the absence of a prosecution I'll make my own mind up on his innocence and he has no right to continue his career" is, I am afraid, fundamentally undermining that core principle of our democracy that a man (or woman) is innocent until proven guilty. That principle must be defended at all costs. Because once you abandon it and throw justice to the mob then your society is headed on a very dark path. 

[babulator]

I get this 100%. I would not have been able to root for AB had we signed him a few years back. There's  handful of other folks that I could in no way get behind.

[BuffaloBill]

1 hour ago, Beach said:

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

 

True, but it will get very ugly if they start losing, Watson does not play up to the numbers in his contract and they look at the bankrupting of their future due to lost draft picks.

[GunnerBill]

8 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:

Curious about whether you believe Putin is guilty of war crimes in the absence of due process and conviction. 

 

I believe he should be subject to due process. The same as everyone else. 

 

EDIT: I acknowledge it probably won't happen because he won't be deposed, but if he were to be overthrown and arrested then he should be put in front of the International Criminal Court at the Hague. The same as Slobodan Milosovic and the other leaders of the Balkan wars.

Edited March 19, 2022 by GunnerBill

[Virgil]

I’m fairness, had we signed Vick all those years ago, I would have stopped watching the Bills

[The Red King]

Two sides.  I agree with GunnerBill and due process.  People sometimes jump to conclusions, and yes, sometimes people make false accusations.  I am not going to say for sure he did it unless he is convicted.

 

With that being said...

 

He would not have to be convicted for me to feel wrong rooting for him.  There is not enough out there to really know one way or the other atm, so you need to follow your gut in regards to rooting for him.  I, for one, would feel sick doing so.  Not because he is a sexual predator, but because I feel he likely is.  Browns fans have to make the same decision now.

 

As for swinging this back to the Browns fans, I feel bad for them.  Imagine drafting Allen, having a year or two of hope finally after being terrible for so long, only to see him regress like Mayfield did.  And then giving up a ton of 1sts for Watson.  I remember Browns fans (in the brief time the Browns didn't exist) coming up to Buffalo one game in a show of support.  Great fans.  So yeah, I feel for them.

[GaryPinC]

20 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

It is fundamental plank of all major western justice systems that an individual has the right to a presumption of innocence. He is innocent until proven guilty. It doesn't mean nothing happened. But it does mean he is innocent. That is what the court essentially finds when it takes the decision not to indict. 

 

Sexual assault allegations with no third party witnesses are, as you rightly say, difficult to prosecute. But to say "well in the absence of a prosecution I'll make my own mind up on his innocence and he has no right to continue his career" is, I am afraid, fundamentally undermining that core principle of our democracy that a man (or woman) is innocent until proven guilty. That principle must be defended at all costs. Because once you abandon it and throw justice to the mob then your society is headed on a very dark path. 

 

 

His true guilt or innocence could not be assessed by the justice system and I respect that unfortunate reality.  Unfortunately you do not share the importance of that distinction.

 

I also have a conscience and upon examining the stories and circumstances of this case, I question his innocence.   

I will not support the team(2nd favorite team), buy no merchandise for my son who is a big fan or give my money to them in any way.

 

And I would not allow my daughter to be anywhere around him.

 

If you feel that is some toxic descent into a dark reality by a mindless mob then so be it.

 

[GunnerBill]

7 minutes ago, GaryPinC said:

 

 

His true guilt or innocence could not be assessed by the justice system and I respect that unfortunate reality.  Unfortunately you do not share the importance of that distinction.

 

I also have a conscience and upon examining the stories and circumstances of this case, I question his innocence.   

I will not support the team(2nd favorite team), buy no merchandise for my son who is a big fan or give my money to them in any way.

 

And I would not allow my daughter to be anywhere around him.

 

If you feel that is some toxic descent into a dark reality by a mindless mob then so be it.

 

 

I think once you undermine that princple, unfortunately it is, yes.

 

You of course are entitled to take personal decisions about how you spend your money. That is your right. I don't blame you for that or even think it is unreasonable.

 

But the justice system decides innocence and guilt. Not you. Watson is innocent in the eyes of the law and has the right to continue his career. 

Edited March 19, 2022 by GunnerBill

[H2o]

Good for Browns fans, well, the former Browns fans. The wagon is welcome, for you especially, at this point and I don't blame them one bit whatsoever. 

[SCBills]

I have no comment on the Watson issue either way, but “Go Bills” is currently trending on Twitter nationwide with Browns fans tweeting the change of their fan allegiance to the Bills.  

[SirAndrew]

2 hours ago, KDIGGZ said:

The burden of proof is on the prosecution to convict. They must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that something happened. Sometimes DOUBT is all that needs to be proven, not innocence. Whether that is the best system or not I will trust your research into the subject. However it certainly lends itself to fallacy. There is going to be a gray area where certain truths may be accepted but not prosecutable.

 

In a he said she said (she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said,  she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said) case, in such a unique situation where there are no cameras allowed in the room, it makes it quite difficult to come up with enough evidence to prove guilt and just enough gray area to allow for doubt.

 

He may not be proven guilty in a court of law but morally speaking this is very likely not an innocent man and he is now the face of an entire franchise and the highest paid QB in the world in terms of guaranteed money. He got to go to a better team and got a huge pay raise and meanwhile there are 22+ women who now have to watch their backs and many of whom will likely need to find a new profession. The whole thing feels very wrong to me and I don't doubt that a lot of Cleveland fans, especially females, aren't happy about this.

I’m just going to say what no one else has yet. There’s people around here more well versed than I on the legal system, but I’ll share what I’ve seen with my own eyes. If Watson was an average dude, he’s probably in jail. People forget the benefits to wealth. I’ve seen people take some pretty harsh falls for one “he said/she said” incident, but the burden of evidence needed always seems greater when you can afford a stellar legal team. 

[Max Fischer]

2 hours ago, 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. 

I understand your position in theory but find it very unfortunate and robotic, if not illogical. Let’s hope you are not running an orphanage and decide to rehire a person whom twenty-children accused of them child abuse but was not indicated. 
 

“The court of law says they are not guilty and I will not convict them in the court of public opinion. Besides the kids always liked his candy.”