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

[nedboy7]

10 minutes ago, Don Otreply said:

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!!!

 

Take a look at who is rotting in the prisons of America.  America has a prison industrial complex problem.  Welcome to democracy. 

[Chandler#81]

9 minutes ago, Albany,n.y. said:

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.

um, no. OJ & Biscuit went rogue After playing in Buffalo. Entirely different than signing a player who has already done dirty deeds. Had we signed Ray Lewis after his post-Super Bowl foray with a gun, I’d have been disgusted with the team.

[Albany,n.y.]

7 minutes ago, Chandler#81 said:

um, no. OJ & Biscuit went rogue After playing in Buffalo. Entirely different than signing a player who has already done dirty deeds. Had we signed Ray Lewis after his post-Super Bowl foray with a gun, I’d have been disgusted with the team.

We're not that innocent.  I remember Reggie Rogers going from prison to Bills camp.  Just a few years ago we had Richie Incognito who had quite a bad reputation before he came here.  I didn't see fans leaving when Richie was our starting LG. The Bills have given guys a "second chance" on more than one occasion and they still kept the fan base. 

[GunnerBill]

1 hour ago, Max Fischer said:

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?

 

I mean that is very clearly not what I said. In your extreme hypothetical I think all sorts of legal safeguarding duties would be engaged in that situation (certainly they would in the UK) and a person even when innocent would unlikely to be re-hired in that scenario. However, there are multiple similar examples in schools of where such an allegation has been made (and I know at least of one case where it was double figures accusers), has later been found to be untrue, and a teacher's reputation has been ruined. 

 

So personally if you are asking me if I would still defend the principle of innocent until proven guilty, yes I would.

40 minutes ago, TBBills said:

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.

 

It can, sure. Unless you have any evidence that it happened here that is an irrelevance. 

[TBBills]

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

It can, sure. Unless you have any evidence that it happened here that is an irrelevance

Even with evidence it can be manipulated.

[GunnerBill]

46 minutes ago, Chandler#81 said:

So… OJ didn’t do it then??

🤦‍♂️

 

OJ was found not guilty. Whether I or you believe he did it is an utter and total irrelevance. 

[FarrellsFinest]

Watson should have demanded a ttade to Pitts. Thier fans would not be able to do that after sitting quitly though big ben.

[teef]

I think browns fans are going to get over this faster than they think they are. 

[GunnerBill]

6 minutes ago, TBBills said:

Even with evidence it can be manipulated.

 

I mean unless you have evidence of corruption. Which you clearly don't.

 

I reckon if on a random day in the middle of last year I'd have put a poll on this site asking "do you believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty?" there would have been an overwhelming majority that said they did. But society is being manipulated towards mob rule sadly. And this thread is an example of that. 

46 minutes ago, Don Otreply said:

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!!!

 

Absolutely. I have very genuine and very real fears for the maintenance of fair justice systems in what perceive themselves civilised western democracies over the next 50 years. There is a definite and frightening trend away from the cold, hard, objectiveness of the law to thirst for a vengence style of justice system where public opinion triumphs over due process. 

 

Unless we stand up for the principles even when it gives us outcomes that might make us uncomfortable we are heading for disaster. Sadly, it is often only those of us inside the system who are really fighting for it. Others will only appreciate what we have lost when it is gone. I remember speaking to one of the then most senior judges in the UK about this at length in 2015. Pretty much every fear he had back then is already to some extent beginning to become a reality. 

Edited March 19, 2022 by GunnerBill

[Chandler#81]

17 minutes ago, Albany,n.y. said:

We're not that innocent.  I remember Reggie Rogers going from prison to Bills camp.  Just a few years ago we had Richie Incognito who had quite a bad reputation before he came here.  I didn't see fans leaving when Richie was our starting LG. The Bills have given guys a "second chance" on more than one occasion and they still kept the fan base. 

In no way did I mean to infer the Bills are a squeaky clean operation. But your references are lame. Rogers was jailed for killing a person in an auto wreck while drunk. The only eye-popping thing Richie did was try to chop off his dead fathers head -AFTER he left Buffalo. No criminal charges 

[JESSEFEFFER]

I am getting old and I like historical context which means I feel like I know more stuff and feel the need to share it.  Maybe it was pointed out already and I missed it but  here is a classic Ralph move that makes a point................

 

Ralph's Protest of Modell Moving the Browns

 

 

Edited March 19, 2022 by JESSEFEFFER

[GunnerBill]

17 minutes ago, Chandler#81 said:

In no way did I mean to infer the Bills are a squeaky clean operation. But your references are lame. Rogers was jailed for killing a person in an auto wreck while drunk. The only eye-popping thing Richie did was try to chop off his dead fathers head -AFTER he left Buffalo. No criminal charges 

 

There were no criminal charges here either. It only becomes a criminal charge if indicted. If he had have been indicted I'd have been arguing most strongly for the NFL to suspend him immediately while the criminal trial ran its course. Indeed, I argued for that all of last season while a criminal investigation was ongoing. 

[foreboding]

Read their forum. They are mostly very unhappy. Sucks for them.

 

https://www.dawgtalkers.net/ubbthreads.php/topics/1932763/5

[Chandler#81]

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

There were no criminal charges here either. It only becomes a criminal charge if indicted. If he had have been indicted I'd have been arguing most strongly for the NFL to suspend him immediately while the criminal trial ran its course. Indeed, I argued for that all of last season while a criminal investigation was ongoing. 

Brother GB, you don’t honestly think he’s innocent of all 22 allegations he’s being sued for, do you??

[Maybe Someday]

4 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

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. 

 

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 do agree with your overall premise of innocence until proven guilty but I completely disagree with this statement you made: “If the grand jury thought the evidence presented gave a reasonable chance of conviction they would have indicted.”

 

When it comes to these high profile cases, prosecutors want a lot more than a reasonable chance of conviction, they want an overwhelming likelihood of conviction. IMO some prosecutors won’t even try if there’s a chance the court may find them innocent. They don’t want to be the one that allows a court to rule someone who they believe is obviously a sexual predator is innocent simply because there’s no hard evidence. Right or wrong politics play a role.

That is why I personally never expected any criminal charges against him and fully expect him to settle all civil cases with payoffs, non disclosure agreements and a statement saying it is not an admission of guilt. 

Edited March 19, 2022 by Maybe Someday

[Chandler#81]

3 minutes ago, foreboding said:

Read their forum. They are mostly very unhappy. Sucks for them.

 

https://www.dawgtalkers.net/ubbthreads.php/topics/1932763/5

Very nice forum. Rivals ours! 
I’d hate to be a Browns fan though.. 🤷‍♂️

[GunnerBill]

Just now, Chandler#81 said:

Brother GB, you don’t honestly think he’s innocent of all 22 allegations he’s being sued for, do you??

 

So now you are just mixing up concepts all over the place.... he is innocent until proven guilty and there is no indictment so he is innocent. A civil court will (unless there is a settlement) rule on his liability under the civil law. 

 

I have been consistent throughout that I believe there was a pattern of worrying behaviour here, and I don't blame anyone for feeling uncomfortable about it. But he is an innocent man, that is simply a legal reality. Whether it is a moral reality, I don't know, I don't really get into making sweeping moral judgments on others but I still suspect something likely went on. 

 

None of which changes my core point. Guilt and liability are matters for the criminal and civil courts respectively (and they are two very different legal concepts and the two courts are doing very different jobs). They are not matters for the court of public opinion and down that road leads disaster. Deshaun Watson is an innocent man and is entitled to return to his career. The NFL may well judge that a suspension is still deserved at some stage and I would support that, but  people who are innocent in the eyes of the law are entitled to get on with their lives. 

[PetermansRedemption]

[Chandler#81]

4 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

So now you are just mixing up concepts all over the place.... he is innocent until proven guilty and there is no indictment so he is innocent. A civil court will (unless there is a settlement) rule on his liability under the civil law. 

 

I have been consistent throughout that I believe there was a pattern of worrying behaviour here, and I don't blame anyone for feeling uncomfortable about it. But he is an innocent man, that is simply a legal reality. Whether it is a moral reality, I don't know, I don't really get into making sweeping moral judgments on others but I still suspect something likely went on. 

 

None of which changes my core point. Guilt and liability are matters for the criminal and civil courts respectively (and they are two very different legal concepts and the two courts are doing very different jobs). They are not matters for the court of public opinion and down that road leads disaster. Deshaun Watson is an innocent man and is entitled to return to his career. The NFL may well judge that a suspension is still deserved at some stage and I would support that, but  people who are innocent in the eyes of the law are entitled to get on with their lives. 

Ok, Nevermind..

[GunnerBill]

6 minutes ago, Maybe Someday said:

I do agree with your overall premise of innocence until proven guilty but I completely disagree with this statement you made: “If the grand jury thought the evidence presented gave a reasonable chance of conviction they would have indicted.”

 

When it comes to these high profile cases, prosecutors want a lot more than a reasonable chance of conviction, they want an overwhelming likelihood of conviction. IMO some prosecutors won’t even try if there’s a chance the court may find them innocent. They don’t want to be the one that allows a court to rule someone who they believe is obviously a sexual predator is innocent simply because there’s no hard evidence. Right or wrong politics play a role.

That is why I personally never expected any criminal charges against him and fully expect him to settle all civil cases with payoffs, non disclosure agreements and a statement saying it is not an admission of guilt. 

 

On this you may well have a point. The prosecution function is entirely apolitical in the UK, I accept that in America where politics plays into it those matters there are other factors that come into play. But the reality remains if they thought the evidence was going to get a conviction they'd have indicted. I accept the threshold might be higher than otherwise in such a high profile case.