Deshaun Watson

[abloom]

Not really sure the NFL would or could have have thought about this situation. How does one think of well if you go to 66 women and more than a 1/3rd sue the punishment will be X?

Once this is finalized the league will have a baseline for serial sexual assault.

Two things can happen at the same time; The NFL can think the punishment is light and they can suck at punishment consistency.

In this case the NFL seems to want to come down really hard given the shear volume of instances and the complete lack of remorse by Watson not to mention one owner rewarding Watson's bad behavior with the richest contract in history.

On a side note; I can only imagine how many NFL owners have blackballed the Browns going forward.

The fact that the NFL differentiated sexual assault by violent and non-violent without then defining those conditions were a problem. Additionally their failure to properly define repeat offender as someone who has a pattern/history of violations opposed to someone facing discipline multiple times for violation of the conduct policy is another instance.

If you read Sue's decision it describes a lot of failures by the NFL in properly defining their policy.

While all that may be true she also said basically said this was unique and the worse ever. The NFL isn't disagreeing with the outcome of the charges but they are and should be appealing the length. Nothing precluded her from levying whatever she she felt was appropriate looking forward not backward.

Regardless, this has been appealed and we wait. Once the final decision is made then Watson and his team can decide their next steps.

It's almost like blaming a gun instead of the idiot that pulled the trigger in a murder. The NFL needs to get this right. They are looking way past just Watson in the evolution of dealing with a punishment that appropriately fits this particular transgression times 24.

Watson should be lucky she didn't give 6 games per occurrence if one wants to argue consistency.

Actually this is completely wrong and specifically addressed in her decision. She stated that due to the events falling under the defined non-violent catagory and as a first time offender, she was bound by precedent to start the suspension at 0 games and work her way up. As first time offenders for non-violent sexual assault had previously capped out at 6 games (as decided previously by Rodger Goodell) that's what was impossed.

Again the issue that is being run into is that is a long history of inconsistent, and overall relatively mild punishments being set by Goodell. And while the NFL is forward facing, they are not forward thinking.

[abloom]

The fact that the NFL differentiated sexual assault by violent and non-violent without then defining those conditions were a problem. Additionally their failure to properly define repeat offender as someone who has a pattern/history of violations opposed to someone facing discipline multiple times for violation of the conduct policy is another instance.

If you read Sue's decision it describes a lot of failures by the NFL in properly defining their policy.

While all that may be true she also said basically said this was unique and the worse ever. The NFL isn't disagreeing with the outcome of the charges but they are and should be appealing the length. Nothing precluded her from levying whatever she she felt was appropriate looking forward not backward.

Regardless, this has been appealed and we wait. Once the final decision is made then Watson and his team can decide their next steps.

It's almost like blaming a gun instead of the idiot that pulled the trigger in a murder. The NFL needs to get this right. They are looking way past just Watson in the evolution of dealing with a punishment that appropriately fits this particular transgression times 24.

Watson should be lucky she didn't give 6 games per occurrence if one wants to argue consistency.

Yeah, it's a mess. I thought he'd get a full year. Or maybe even banned. IDK what it takes. I know he can't admit guilt or remorse while other things are still happening, but that would help his case, I think. If he even FEELS that way. IDK why he doesn't just screw girls, or pay for it the right way in Vegas, if that's his kink. Stupid.

Any good lawyer will not allow him to say anything like an apology or expressing remorse until the criminal statute of limitations expire. The NFL knows this, which is why they are using his lack of ability to apologize or show remorse to appeal for a longer suspension. Now maybe he does truly believe he did nothing wrong, but even if he thinks he screwed up, no lawyer would ever advise him to say anything as long as prison time is a possibility

[ericanadian]

While all that may be true she also said basically said this was unique and the worse ever. The NFL isn't disagreeing with the outcome of the charges but they are and should be appealing the length. Nothing precluded her from levying whatever she she felt was appropriate looking forward not backward.

Regardless, this has been appealed and we wait. Once the final decision is made then Watson and his team can decide their next steps.

It's almost like blaming a gun instead of the idiot that pulled the trigger in a murder. The NFL needs to get this right. They are looking way past just Watson in the evolution of dealing with a punishment that appropriately fits this particular transgression times 24.

Watson should be lucky she didn't give 6 games per occurrence if one wants to argue consistency.

Yeah, it's a mess. I thought he'd get a full year. Or maybe even banned. IDK what it takes. I know he can't admit guilt or remorse while other things are still happening, but that would help his case, I think. If he even FEELS that way. IDK why he doesn't just screw girls, or pay for it the right way in Vegas, if that's his kink. Stupid.

Any good lawyer will not allow him to say anything like an apology or expressing remorse until the criminal statute of limitations expire. The NFL knows this, which is why they are using his lack of ability to apologize or show remorse to appeal for a longer suspension. Now maybe he does truly believe he did nothing wrong, but even if he thinks he screwed up, no lawyer would ever advise him to say anything as long as prison time is a possibility

My guess is that a lawyer would also advise him to just shut his mouth about the subject in general, so I’m not sure that’s what’s happening here. Not a lot of good is going to come from him continuing to insist he did nothing wrong and a judge is also capable of inflating a penalty if there is a lack of contrition.

[MFundercover]

Why should he admit guilt when he beat two grand juries and settled (almost) all his cases?

It's obvious there is nothing the guy could have done to defend himself or prove his innocence. He was buried day 1.

[Ice]

The fact that the NFL differentiated sexual assault by violent and non-violent without then defining those conditions were a problem. Additionally their failure to properly define repeat offender as someone who has a pattern/history of violations opposed to someone facing discipline multiple times for violation of the conduct policy is another instance.

If you read Sue's decision it describes a lot of failures by the NFL in properly defining their policy.

While all that may be true she also said basically said this was unique and the worse ever. The NFL isn't disagreeing with the outcome of the charges but they are and should be appealing the length. Nothing precluded her from levying whatever she she felt was appropriate looking forward not backward.

Regardless, this has been appealed and we wait. Once the final decision is made then Watson and his team can decide their next steps.

It's almost like blaming a gun instead of the idiot that pulled the trigger in a murder. The NFL needs to get this right. They are looking way past just Watson in the evolution of dealing with a punishment that appropriately fits this particular transgression times 24.

Watson should be lucky she didn't give 6 games per occurrence if one wants to argue consistency.

Actually this is completely wrong and specifically addressed in her decision. She stated that due to the events falling under the defined non-violent catagory and as a first time offender, she was bound by precedent to start the suspension at 0 games and work her way up. As first time offenders for non-violent sexual assault had previously capped out at 6 games (as decided previously by Rodger Goodell) that's what was impossed.

Again the issue that is being run into is that is a long history of inconsistent, and overall relatively mild punishments being set by Goodell. And while the NFL is forward facing, they are not forward thinking.

We will see on appeal.

Believe she had no choice if you like but the NFL obviously believes otherwise.

Her reasoning IMO in the punishment phase is flawed. She may think her hands were tied and you obviously believe that too but I certainly do not think I am wrong and we will find out next week which of us is correct.

Being a literalist is probably not a position you should cling to when it comes to the NFL

Just saying

[Ice]

Why should he admit guilt when he beat two grand juries and settled (almost) all his cases?

It's obvious there is nothing the guy could have done to defend himself or prove his innocence. He was buried day 1.

Technically he could have fought the allegations in court so “nothing he could do” to prove innocence is not correct.

He chose to settle civil cases rather than fight but I agree he doesn’t need to admit guilt.

[MFundercover]

Why should he admit guilt when he beat two grand juries and settled (almost) all his cases?

It's obvious there is nothing the guy could have done to defend himself or prove his innocence. He was buried day 1.

Technically he could have fought the allegations in court so “nothing he could do” to prove innocence is not correct.

He chose to settle civil cases rather than fight but I agree he doesn’t need to admit guilt.

If he went to court and won people would still be freaking out claiming the justice department is rigged for the rich.

As with any controversial subject I always find myself in the middle. I still think Deshaun deserves a right to defend himself and has had some wins in doing it.

[Ice]

Why should he admit guilt when he beat two grand juries and settled (almost) all his cases?

It's obvious there is nothing the guy could have done to defend himself or prove his innocence. He was buried day 1.

Technically he could have fought the allegations in court so “nothing he could do” to prove innocence is not correct.

He chose to settle civil cases rather than fight but I agree he doesn’t need to admit guilt.

If he went to court and won people would still be freaking out claiming the justice department is rigged for the rich.

As with any controversial subject I always find myself in the middle. I still think Deshaun deserves a right to defend himself and has had some wins in doing it.

Nothing has been stopping him.

Johnny Depp took the exact opposite approach and won a 10 million dollar judgement

Nothing wrong with your stance but he did have choices and the means to make them. He chose, no one else.

[FantasyFreak]

Page 66. How fitting.

[murphysxm]

Now maybe he does truly believe he did nothing wrong, but even if he thinks he screwed up, no lawyer would ever advise him to say anything as long as prison time is a possibility

Prison time is off the table once the grand jury decided to not pursue criminally. He isn’t showing remorse for 1 of 2 reasons. He doesn’t feel he did wrong or he doesn’t want to increase the cash settlements. Or both.

[abloom]

Now maybe he does truly believe he did nothing wrong, but even if he thinks he screwed up, no lawyer would ever advise him to say anything as long as prison time is a possibility

Prison time is off the table once the grand jury decided to not pursue criminally. He isn’t showing remorse for 1 of 2 reasons. He doesn’t feel he did wrong or he doesn’t want to increase the cash settlements. Or both.

Um no, that's not how it works. A grand jury not returning an indictment just means that the prosecutor did not provide sufficient evidence to move forward with a trial. If new evidence (such as an admission of guilt) comes out, the prosecutor can present the new evidence and he can still be brought to trial, until the statue of limitations pass he can still be charged.

[Csl312]

Exactly. It's not double jeopardy until you have actually been acquitted. I'm no lawyer but it seems publicly admitting you sexually assaulted 20+ women is probably a bad strategy for staying out of prison.

[Ice]

Page 66. How fitting.

Post of the thread; I see what what you did there!

[honcho55]

Page 66. How fitting.

Post of the thread; I see what what you did there!

Yikes. Didn’t realize the number had risen that high. Been kinda ignoring this story for a while now until things actually happen. Ready for this to all be settled.

[Mephistopheles]

Page 66. How fitting.

Post of the thread; I see what what you did there!

Would be more fitting if it ended on page 69.

I'm here all day...try the veal...