FREE DESHAUN WATSON!!!!

Y.O.M. said:
Not 100%, I frankly don't.

But it doesn't matter who or what I believe. What matters is that there are no indictments, no criminal charges...so, seems like law enforcement, district attorneys, grand jurys didn't believe the women 100% either.

Again -- dirty disgusting pig? Absolutely. A criminal who should be heavily sanctioned by his employer? Ehhhhhhhhhh
Click to expand...
This right here. It’s not about the accusations. It should be based on indictments. Keep it out of the civil court realm of “he said, she said”.

It should be. But it’s not. Society the way it is they had to push this as high as they could for accusations settled out of court.

And he’s a scummy ass creep, nothing said here negates that.
 
So what exactly was the point of bringing in Sue Robinson as a disciplinary officer?
 
White Knight said:
I understand your point. You don't believe women.
Click to expand...
Correction: I don't believe THESE women. At least not 100%.

Just a little crumb for your barely functioning brain: of the 25+ "cases" of alleged sexual misconduct, if EVEN ONE of them was actually sexual assault, the grand jury would have indicted. The DA would have prosecuted. There would have at least been a trial. But...nothing. Nada. Zip. Not one single allegation substantiated with an indictment -- and it's VERY clear that a whole heckofalot of people wanted Watson to catch a charge. But they couldn't get anything to stick.

That doesn't seem odd to you?
 
Tharvot said:
So what exactly was the point of bringing in Sue Robinson as a disciplinary officer?
Click to expand...
The league wanted an outside voice to drop the hammer, but Goodell was willing to swing it if he didn't get the result he wanted.
 
White Knight said:
So all 30 women were lying?
Click to expand...
If even one of them was telling 100% truth -- that there was unwanted sexual contact (i.e.: assault), I'd like to think a criminal charge could have been filed and an indictment reached.

But no.

And since no, and since we are a Nation of due process (USA! USA! USA!), he can't be punished. And I dont like to take sides unless there's credible facts that lead me TO a side. Again -- doesn't exist here.
 
Y.O.M. said:
If even one of them was telling 100% truth -- that there was unwanted sexual contact (i.e.: assault), I'd like to think a criminal charge could have been filed and an indictment reached.

But no.

And since no, and since we are a Nation of due process (USA! USA! USA!), he can't be punished. And I dont like to take sides unless there's credible facts that lead me TO a side. Again -- doesn't exist here.
Click to expand...
Special justice for star athletes and another kind for the average American.
 
White Knight said:
Special justice for star athletes and another kind for the average American.
Click to expand...
Due process should be applied evenly to all Americans.

He's black, so i guess if you were a cynic you'd think he'd have the book thrown at him. But here we are.
 
Guy Incognito said:
The league wanted an outside voice to drop the hammer, but Goodell was willing to swing it if he didn't get the result he wanted.
Click to expand...

So it was a completely pointless dog and pony show.
 
Tharvot said:
So it was a completely pointless dog and pony show.
Click to expand...
Only because the league didn't get the result it wanted.

If she suspended for a year, I doubt the league would have appealed and pushed for a longer suspension.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Only because the league didn't get the result it wanted.

If she suspended for a year, I doubt the league would have appealed and pushed for a longer suspension.
Click to expand...

Right, hence being pointless or i guess a better description is "farcical".

Goodell and both the league and NFLPA wanted to move on from using him as sole arbiter in punishment cases, so they chose Sue Robinson to fit that position. Then "JK, lol" when the punishment handed out wasn't to their liking. The league decides a punishment and if the independent arbiter's decision doesn't at least fit their minimums, they override the decision.

Don't get me wrong, whatever Watson gets is what he deserves. The NFL just wasted everyone's time and took extra unnecessary steps to get here and that's my chief question/complaint.
 
White Knight said:
It isn't.
Click to expand...
So, because it isn't universally applied, you're indignant when it actually is?

Weird position, but ok.

And, of course, "due process" wasn't even technically afforded because the man is suspended from his job for a considerable time over...allegations. At least he got due process where the law is concerned. Small victories for mankind.
 
Y.O.M. said:
So, because it isn't universally applied, you're indignant when it actually is?

Weird position, but ok.

And, of course, "due process" wasn't even technically afforded because the man is suspended from his job for a considerable time over...allegations. At least he got due process where the law is concerned. Small victories for mankind.
Click to expand...
The guy got special treatment because he's a football star.
 
Y.O.M. said:
A criminal who should be heavily sanctioned by his employer? Ehhhhhhhhhh
Click to expand...
That's an odd sentence. One is a criminal situation and the other is a private employment situation.

Newsflash, a company can fire or sanction their Employees in any way they want as long as it is in accordance with any laws or statutes. And if you have a union who signs off on it, you are stuck.
 
Orlando_Eagles said:
This right here. It’s not about the accusations. It should be based on indictments. Keep it out of the civil court realm of “he said, she said”.

It should be. But it’s not. Society the way it is they had to push this as high as they could for accusations settled out of court.

And he’s a scummy ass creep, nothing said here negates that.
Click to expand...
Nope, a private employer doesn't need to rely on any indictments or court findings.

The NFL is within its rights to suspend him because he reflected poorly on the league. Even if 100 people lie about someone, the attention it brings the NFL is negative so they are allowed to suspend him.
 
fordman84 said:
Nope, a private employer doesn't need to rely on any indictments or court findings.

The NFL is within its rights to suspend him because he reflected poorly on the league. Even if 100 people lie about someone, the attention it brings the NFL is negative so they are allowed to suspend him.
Click to expand...

Bingo. Same reason an employer can fire an employee for firing off something controversial on social media.

The NFL's value is in their brand.
 
Tharvot said:
Bingo. Same reason an employer can fire an employee for firing off something controversial on social media.

The NFL's value is in their brand.
Click to expand...
Exactly the scenario I thought of. Posting a video on social media of you drinking while wearing anything work related is "how to get fired 101"
 
fordman84 said:
Nope, a private employer doesn't need to rely on any indictments or court findings.

The NFL is within its rights to suspend him because he reflected poorly on the league. Even if 100 people lie about someone, the attention it brings the NFL is negative so they are allowed to suspend him.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree. That's why I said previously that the NFL did what it felt it had to do, and I get it.

But fans clamoring for Watson to be suspended for 1+ years...c'mon. If there was ANY indictable charge then I'd be carrying a torch and pitchfork myself. But there hasn't been any fire to connect to the smoke, so it doesn't quite seem right. To be honest, I thought the NFL's 'independent arbiter" got it right, but what do i know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top