Ok so what do you think Watson gets???

[18IsTheMan]

Man, this thing is so rigged. Now the NFL is appealing the INDEPENDENT, female judge's decision. They apparently want an indefinite ban (of at least a year) and a monetary fine. Here's the kicker, the NFL (i.e. Roger Goodell) is appealing the decision. Guess who gets to hear the appeal? Whoever Roger Goodell chooses OR...and this is rich...Goodell can hear the appeal himself. Two separate grand juries declined to bring charges. An independent former federal judge, who happens to be a female, decided 6 games was an adequate suspension. But Goodell can't let it go.

So the whole independent judge thing was just a sham. In the end, the NFL (i.e Goodell) can just hand out whatever punishment he wants.

 

[Prestonyte]

And the ruling was rendered by an independent female judge.

I don't really know what the message is. If you're not found to be guilty of any wrongdoing, you'll still be punished?

Ask Jack Del Rio that question.

 

[Americanbulldog]

Man, this thing is so rigged. Now the NFL is appealing the INDEPENDENT, female judge's decision. They apparently want an indefinite ban (of at least a year) and a monetary fine. Here's the kicker, the NFL (i.e. Roger Goodell) is appealing the decision. Guess who gets to hear the appeal? Whoever Roger Goodell chooses OR...and this is rich...Goodell can hear the appeal himself. Two separate grand juries declined to bring charges. An independent former federal judge, who happens to be a female, decided 6 games was an adequate suspension. But Goodell can't let it go.

So the whole independent judge thing was just a sham. In the end, the NFL (i.e Goodell) can just hand out whatever punishment he wants.

Players assoc signed off on the system. So…

 

[Prestonyte]

Man, this thing is so rigged. Now the NFL is appealing the INDEPENDENT, female judge's decision. They apparently want an indefinite ban (of at least a year) and a monetary fine. Here's the kicker, the NFL (i.e. Roger Goodell) is appealing the decision. Guess who gets to hear the appeal? Whoever Roger Goodell chooses OR...and this is rich...Goodell can hear the appeal himself. Two separate grand juries declined to bring charges. An independent former federal judge, who happens to be a female, decided 6 games was an adequate suspension. But Goodell can't let it go.

So the whole independent judge thing was just a sham. In the end, the NFL (i.e Goodell) can just hand out whatever punishment he wants.

Have you reviewed the offenses and associated punishments by the league over recent history? Seems he got off easy.

 

[Yard_Pimps]

And the ruling was rendered by an independent female judge.

I don't really know what the message is. If you're not found to be guilty of any wrongdoing, you'll still be punished?

That’s not true. Sue ruled on precedent. Their was no evidence of violence so she went with the league’s past history and actually went two games longer to set an example.

 

[Yard_Pimps]

Players assoc signed off on the system. So…

Won’t stop them from suing. If goodell suspends him for longer they will sue in federal court.

 

[18IsTheMan]

There's obviously more going on here. Goodell essentially wants to end Watson's playing career. Something is driving that.

 

[Prestonyte]

There's obviously more going on here. Goodell essentially wants to end Watson's playing career. Something is driving that.

Maybe being a predator has something to do with it.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Maybe being a predator has something to do with it.

If there was evidence of that, maybe.

 

[Yard_Pimps]

There's obviously more going on here. Goodell essentially wants to end Watson's playing career. Something is driving that.

It’s called a high profile black quarter back tried to pull a power trip and basically stuck it to an owner and said I’m not playing for you, trade me. Owners have always tried to stop the players power.

 

[18IsTheMan]

It’s called a high profile black quarter back tried to pull a power trip and basically stuck it to an owner and said I’m not playing for you, trade me. Owners have always tried to stop the players power.

Race certainly seems to be a motive. Sadly.

 

[Pepsicock]

Should be in jail

 

[Prestonyte]

If there was evidence of that, maybe.

There are over 20 verified complaints naming him as a predator.

 

[Prestonyte]

Race certainly seems to be a motive. Sadly.

Or the opposite, using race to gain preferential treatment.

 

[18IsTheMan]

There are over 20 verified complaints naming him as a predator.

Complaints do not equal evidence, not even for football players who played for Clemson. Sorry.

 

[Prestonyte]

Complaints do not equal evidence, not even for football players who played for Clemson. Sorry.

The legitimacy of the complaints have not been questioned. Only whether prosecutory standards have been met to move forward with criminal charges.

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[KingWard]

Ok so what do you think Watson gets???​

One second of cerebral exertion is more than I have to devote to him.

 

[ToddFlanders]

There's obviously more going on here. Goodell essentially wants to end Watson's playing career. Something is driving that.

I don’t think he does want to end his career. I think this is purely a PR move wherein they get credit as a league for saying that’s not enough (so they satisfy one area of their fans base and/or social warriors). However, they’d love to have him back in 6 games, drawing eyes to TV’s this season (satisfying the other part of the NFL fanbase).

 

[18IsTheMan]

The legitimacy of the complaints have not been questioned. Only whether prosecutory standards have been met to move forward with criminal charges.

MSN

www.msn.com

Sorry, but this is still American and you're still innocent until proven guilty, even if you went to Clemson.

 

[Yard_Pimps]

Should be in jail

On what charges exactly. Where is the evidence? A Craigslist chicks word isn’t enough and shouldn’t be.

 

[Americanbulldog]

Won’t stop them from suing. If goodell suspends him for longer they will sue in federal court.

He will be gone at least 12 games to a year before all is said and done.

 

[Americanbulldog]

On what charges exactly. Where is the evidence? A Craigslist chicks word isn’t enough and shouldn’t be.

Come on dude, don’t go down that road. There is PLENTY OF evidence that he a serial predator. Even the j judge sue Robinson AGEEED with the NFL on the charges.

 

[Yard_Pimps]

He will be gone at least 12 games to a year before all is said and done.

I’ll take that bet. How do you know the AG won’t have the same opinion as the judge?

 

[Yard_Pimps]

Come on dude, don’t go down that road. There is PLENTY OF evidence that he a serial predator. Even the j judge sue Robinson AGEEED with the NFL on the charges.

Actually there is no evidence that he was a serial predator. Hence two grand juries saying there wasn’t enough evidence. Ever heard a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich? There is a reason that saying exist. They see evidence that may not even be admissible is court. She did not agree that he did anything illegal, period. I believe in innocent until proven guilty in any circumstance, it’s dangerous and wrong to do the opposite.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Come on dude, don’t go down that road. There is PLENTY OF evidence that he a serial predator. Even the j judge sue Robinson AGEEED with the NFL on the charges.

You say this but you actually don't have a clue what the any of the evidence is. The only "evidence" you know of is "a lot of women have said stuff." TWO SEPARATE grand juries reviewed every shred of evidence and said there wasn't enough to prosecute. The grand jury in Texas is made up of 12 people (I think), so that's 24 people who looked at every single solitary shred of evidence, large and small, and declined to press charges. The prosecutor runs the show and shows the grand jury EVERYTHING. And 2 separate grand juries said "nah." Why don't they press charges? Because they know it would lose in court. My guess is the evidence consisted of a lot of text messages, which usually don't amount to much.

The problem is that people are so easily swept up by the "well, if A LOT of people are making an accusation, then it must be true."

 

[Lurker123]

A lot of accusers certainly means more than a single accuser, but two grand juries refusing to indict means an awful lot too.

It was posted here prior that this guy was forced to sit out all last year. Is that true, or was it his choice?

If he was already forced out a year, then I think the 6 games is too much. If last year was voluntary, then 6 games is probably right for the NFL to protect its image.

How does six games compare with the dudes knocking girls unconscious in elevators and such?

 

[Prestonyte]

Houston PD Detective Testified She Believes Watson Committed Crimes, per Report - Sports Illustrated

The Browns quarterback has denied all allegations against him, and two Texas grand juries declined to indict him on criminal charges.

www.si.com

Deshaun Watson suspension: Examining NFL process and precedent - Sports Illustrated

Our Business of Football columnist analyzes the factors that influenced Sue L. Robinson’s decision on the Browns’ quarterback.

www.si.com

 

[18IsTheMan]

Houston PD Detective Testified She Believes Watson Committed Crimes, per Report - Sports Illustrated

The Browns quarterback has denied all allegations against him, and two Texas grand juries declined to indict him on criminal charges.

www.si.com

Deshaun Watson suspension: Examining NFL process and precedent - Sports Illustrated

Our Business of Football columnist analyzes the factors that influenced Sue L. Robinson’s decision on the Browns’ quarterback.

www.si.com

None of that means anything. It doesn't matter what a police detective "believes". If prosecutors failed to convince two separate grand juries that there enough evidence to indict, then it was pretty weak stuff.

That's been a major problem with this case. Media keep putting out stories that sound REALLY bad but people don't stop to realize that some police detective giving their personal opinion doesn't actually carry legal weight. Or a text message saying "i'm sorry about today" could mean million and one things from "i'm sorry i was late" to "i'm sorry i fell asleep during the massage and farted" to "i'm sorry i pulled my ding dong out."

The problem is that people read everything with the assumption of guilt already in their minds. Most in this forum, obviously believe him to be guilty b/c he played at Clemson.

 

[Yard_Pimps]

A lot of accusers certainly means more than a single accuser, but two grand juries refusing to indict means an awful lot too.

It was posted here prior that this guy was forced to sit out all last year. Is that true, or was it his choice?

If he was already forced out a year, then I think the 6 games is too much. If last year was voluntary, then 6 games is probably right for the NFL to protect its image.

How does six games compare with the dudes knocking girls unconscious in elevators and such?

He asked for a trade and then the accusations came out and the Texans basically benched him due to those things.

 

[Prestonyte]

None of that means anything. It doesn't matter what a police detective "believes". If prosecutors failed to convince two separate grand juries that there enough evidence to indict, then it was pretty weak stuff.

That's been a major problem with this case. Media keep putting out stories that sound REALLY bad but people don't stop to realize that some police detective giving their personal opinion doesn't actually carry legal weight. Or a text message saying "i'm sorry about today" could mean million and one things from "i'm sorry i was late" to "i'm sorry i fell asleep during the massage and farted" to "i'm sorry i pulled my ding dong out."

The problem is that people read everything with the assumption of guilt already in their minds. Most in this forum, obviously believe him to be guilty b/c he played at Clemson.

Are you saying he is innocent and all 20+ women are lying and none of this happened?

 

[Lurker123]

Are you saying he is innocent and all 20+ women are lying and none of this happened?

Thats just it though. You can't say he's guilty, as they didn't even have enough evidence to take it to trial.

So we're in the zone of how to treat someone like that. Guilty because wink wink, nod nod, we just know he did it?

 

[Yard_Pimps]

None of that means anything. It doesn't matter what a police detective "believes". If prosecutors failed to convince two separate grand juries that there enough evidence to indict, then it was pretty weak stuff.

That's been a major problem with this case. Media keep putting out stories that sound REALLY bad but people don't stop to realize that some police detective giving their personal opinion doesn't actually carry legal weight. Or a text message saying "i'm sorry about today" could mean million and one things from "i'm sorry i was late" to "i'm sorry i fell asleep during the massage and farted" to "i'm sorry i pulled my ding dong out."

The problem is that people read everything with the assumption of guilt already in their minds. Most in this forum, obviously believe him to be guilty b/c he played at Clemson.

BINGO!

 

[Yard_Pimps]

Are you saying he is innocent and all 20+ women are lying and none of this happened?

I’m saying that’s equally as possible as he is guilty.

 

[TopHook]

There's obviously more going on here. Goodell essentially wants to end Watson's playing career. Something is driving that.

Goodell hates dabo.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Are you saying he is innocent and all 20+ women are lying and none of this happened?

It doesn't matter what I think. In America we are innocent until proven guilty. Even if you went to Clemson.

You're coming at this all wrong. Your perspective is that Watson needs to prove he's innocent, but that's not how it works. It's on the accuser/prosecution to prove guilt. That's why in court, there's not an innocent verdict. It's "not guilty" because the prosecution was unable to prove guilt. The accused doesn't have to prove innocence It's also why the process with the grand jury only involves the prosecution. It's all about proving guilt. And, in this case, two grand juries ruled that there wasn't even enough proof to get it to trial.

 

[Prestonyte]

Thats just it though. You can't say he's guilty, as they didn't even have enough evidence to take it to trial.

So we're in the zone of how to treat someone like that. Guilty because wink wink, nod nod, we just know he did it?

O J Simpson without the trial

 

[Prestonyte]

It doesn't matter what I think. In America we are innocent until proven guilty. Even if you went to Clemson.

You're coming at this all wrong. Your perspective is that Watson needs to prove he's innocent, but that's not how it works. It's on the accuser/prosecution to prove guilt. That's why in court, there's not an innocent verdict. It's "not guilty" because the prosecution was unable to prove guilt. The accused doesn't have to prove innocence It's also why the process with the grand jury only involves the prosecution. It's all about proving guilt. And, in this case, two grand juries ruled that there wasn't even enough proof to get it to trial.

He got the Paul Pelosi treatment. "We are not going to pursue this" attitude from the DA.

 

[ToddFlanders]

He got the Paul Pelosi treatment. "We are not going to pursue this" attitude from the DA.

Nope. Not how a grand jury works. Not even in the ballpark.

 

[Yard_Pimps]

O J Simpson without the trial

Not even close. Where is the hard evidence on Watson. There was hard evidence on OJ.

 

[Lurker123]

O J Simpson without the trial

Not sure what you're saying here. But if we're comparing to OJ, he was found not guilty, while Watson was found to not even warrant a trial.

Neither faced or should face prison, probation etc since they weren't found guilty.

They both are open to civil suits though. OJ fought his, Watson settled.

But OJ was beyond his playing days, so there isn't a good comparison for job suspension.