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

[TailgateChef]

Welcome aboard Dawg Pound!

I must admit I've jumped on your bandwagon a number of times.  That 1994 team (with a young Bill Belichick as coach), led by Leroy Hoard and Vinny Testaverde on O and Pepper Johnson and Eric Turner on D, was a lot of fun to watch.  The 2007 team, with Derek Anderson, Braylon Edwards, and a rookie Joe Thomas was also compelling.

[GunnerBill]

5 minutes ago, Max Fischer said:

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.”

 

It isn't illogical. It is brutally logical. We either have a society where someone is innocent until proven guilty and where due process matters, or we don't. There is no halfway house. 

[fergie's ire]

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.

Just something that sounds overly picky, but I think gets misunderstood with our justice system.  Needs to be proven beyond a REASONABLE doubt rather than a shadow of a doubt.  It's a lower burden of proof.  Doesn't mean there can't be any doubt just no more than a "reasonable" person would hold.  Also, indictments are tricky.  It often comes down to whether the DA really wants an indictment.  Hence the adage about being able to indict a ham sandwich.  It probably means the DA didn't think they would be able to get a conviction.  Again, a picky but important distinction.

[Max Fischer]

4 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

It isn't illogical. It is brutally logical. We either have a society where someone is innocent until proven guilty and where due process matters, or we don't. There is no halfway house. 

To be clear, in my hypothetical you believe it’s “brutally logical” for an orphanage to rehire a person that 22 children accused of child abuse because they were not indicted?

Edited March 19, 2022 by Max Fischer

[EasternOHBillsFan]

46 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

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. 

 

You're a part of the problem... OJ must love people like you.

[K D]

4 minutes ago, fergie's ire said:

Just something that sounds overly picky, but I think gets misunderstood with our justice system.  Needs to be proven beyond a REASONABLE doubt rather than a shadow of a doubt.  It's a lower burden of proof.  Doesn't mean there can't be any doubt just no more than a "reasonable" person would hold.  Also, indictments are tricky.  It often comes down to whether the DA really wants an indictment.  Hence the adage about being able to indict a ham sandwich.  It probably means the DA didn't think they would be able to get a conviction.  Again, a picky but important distinction.

Yes good distinction thanks. I just keep thinking back to the OJ case because that was the first trial I had ever seen and it was someone I had heard of and how it really rocked my world with all of the factors involved. I couldn't wrap my head around the fact that someone who had clearly just murdered 2 people was found innocent. But the high priced defense attorneys created DOUBT in the jurors minds: 1. Yes it's true that racism exists and Rodney King had happened among other things so maybe the cops were racist? 2. If the glove does not fit you must acquit! Wow, that's all it took for the jurors to doubt the events. I remember thinking you can get away with anything then. How do they convict anyone? I suppose this system is better than "you are guilty now prove your innocence" or "you are guilty because I said so" but clearly there are some shortcomings and just because you are found "not guilty" doesn't mean you are innocent.

[YoloinOhio]

I believe that the Browns do think he is guilty at least to the degree that the nfl will find reason throughout their investigation to suspend him for a significant number of games. And that Watson believes this as well. That is why they structured the contract to pay him a 45mill signing bonus, and make the 2022 base salary only 1 mill so that he loses as little money as possible as a result of these lawsuits and investigation. It’s enabling and vile. And adds a layer to the disgust of the fan base. 
 

Haslam has a very slimy reputation after his company cheated all those people, so not too surprising he would be thE driving force here but supporting an owner you rarely see and supporting this as the face of the franchise is quite different. 

Edited March 19, 2022 by YoloinOhio

[Hebert19]

Put it this way.  If this was a Bills player do you think beane and McDermott would try and profit from it...nope they would cut his ass.   And there is no way McDermott would even think of going after someone like this.  

 

Net net is the teams chasing him are as big a problem as him. 

[YoloinOhio]

1 minute ago, Hebert19 said:

Put it this way.  If this was a Bills player do you think beane and McDermott would try and profit from it...nope they would cut his ass.   And there is no way McDermott would even think of going after someone like this.  

 

Net net is the teams chasing him are as big a problem as him. 

Because they do the right thing.  The high road, though, is rarely crowded.

[TBBills]

3 hours ago, Beach said:

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

Well killing dogs and raping women kind of 2 different levels. I can guarantee the women that are Browns fans and wives won't budge.

Edited March 19, 2022 by TBBills

[Hebert19]

1 minute ago, TBBills said:

Well killings dogs and raping women kind of 2 different levels. I can guarantee the women that are Browns fans and wives won't budge.

This was different because Vick paid his dues.  He went to jail and ended up bankrupt.  There was at least a sense of time served for him...Watson just got 230M guaranteed.  He's literally had no impact.  Heck he got paid for sitting out last year. 

[Chandler#81]

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

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. 

So… OJ didn’t do it then??

🤦‍♂️

[TBBills]

31 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

It isn't illogical. It is brutally logical. We either have a society where someone is innocent until proven guilty and where due process matters, or we don't. There is no halfway house. 

Due Process can be manipulated when you have money as seen with anyone that had gotten into serious trouble but had the money to change the outcome.

Edited March 19, 2022 by TBBills

[WotAGuy]

5 minutes ago, TBBills said:

Well killings dogs and raping women kind of 2 different levels. I can guarantee the women that are Browns fans and wives won't budge.

Watson is accused of rape?  

[YoloinOhio]

Just now, WotAGuy said:

Watson is accused of rape?  

He was if you categorize forced oral sex is rape

[Don Otreply]

3 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. 

What you have stated in your posts here is the difference between Society trending toward fascism / totalitarian rule and Democratic leadership.

 

     I have a spouse who is a lawyer, and have learned from her a fair bit of how the legal system actually works over the years, and it strikes me from what I hear some folk say that they have no real understanding of how and why the legal system is structured the way it is, for the long and short term greater good of society not just in America but world wide mob rule just can not be the determining factor in deciding guilt or innocence, it just can’t. 
 

Go Bills!!!

[Albany,n.y.]

I could never switch teams because of one player.  OJ is still on the wall of the stadium and Bennett raped a woman.  Our team has had some bad guys too over the years.  Also to those of us who have attended many games how can you switch teams so easily?  I doubt this is coming from dog pound ticket holders.  It's a lot easier for people who sit home and  have rarely attended a game to jump  on and off bandwagons, but I can't see lifelong fans of a team who have been to a bunch of games over the years just dropping their support over one guy who they were there before he came and as long as they are young enough and in good health stand a good chance of being there after he's long gone.

[TBBills]

Anyway I welcome any Browns fans that is tired of cheering for ***** with a corrupt as could be owner.

Edited March 19, 2022 by TBBills

[CoudyBills]

30 minutes ago, EasternOHBillsFan said:

 

You're a part of the problem... OJ must love people like you.

Someone who stands up for your right to due process, and champions the legal rights that protect you is the problem?  Unbelievable how shortsighted people can be these days.

[WotAGuy]

10 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

He was if you categorize forced oral sex is rape

It’s not up to me to define it. The law defines it and Watson was not charged with rape, it was sexual assault. Conflating the two I think gets to Gunner’s point about the court of public option being a slippery slope. I’m not defending Watson, but it’s a fact he was not charged with rape.