Jetsfan80 Posted May 7, 2020 Share Posted May 7, 2020 31 minutes ago, afjetsfan said: Survey says: XXX Survey says.....porn? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jet Nut Posted May 7, 2020 Share Posted May 7, 2020 23 hours ago, hamat711 said: I haven't seen them play? Why are you acting like the group consists of rookies. 1. If you had to rank the best receiver on each team, Crowder would be 32nd. Crowder wouldn't even be the 2nd option for the majority of the league. 2. Herndon is a TE. If you view him as a WR, then you must compare him to other WRs, where he is a JAG. 3. Mims is a rookie WR, and rookie WRs generally struggle. 4. Stop this Perriman nonsense. This guy has been terrible his entire career except for 5 games. Robert Foster had 438 yards in 5 games as a rookie and then he returned back to reality. Perriman wishes he was as good as Robbie. You really want to depend on a rookie, a bust who got hot for 5 games, a average TE who missed a year to injury and the worst primary WR in the league? This is the worst receiving group in the league and everybody knows it besides a few delusional Jet fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted May 7, 2020 Share Posted May 7, 2020 Jets are in a very fragile state right now as a franchise. Way too much youth. Under no circumstances should they be bringing in vets like this. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNJet Posted May 7, 2020 Share Posted May 7, 2020 AB? I'd rather drink turpentine and piss on a brush fire. I ain't touching it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chirorob Posted May 7, 2020 Share Posted May 7, 2020 2 minutes ago, RutgersJetFan said: Jets are in a very fragile state right now as a franchise. Way too much youth. Under no circumstances should they be bringing in vets like this. So, AB couldn't exist in Pitt, where he had a HOF quarterback, was the highest paid WR in the league, and led the league in targets. He couldn't exist in Oakland, where he signed an extension and forced his way out before playing one game. He couldn't make it work in New England, with another HOF quarterback. But, he'll do fine in the NY market with a team that finished #32 in offense last year and a QB who can barely drink alchohal legally. Hard pass on Brown. Plus, you know, he's insane. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rangerous Posted May 8, 2020 Share Posted May 8, 2020 16 hours ago, slimjasi said: Again . . . YES google is your friend again you are wrong. true enough innocent means the person didn't do the crime but a not guilty verdict is the same thing as to how that person can still function in society. the fact that innocent people can be found guilty depicts this. in a sense we are all guilty of something in the eyes of the law. it's whether or not the state wants to pursue whatever they think we are guilty of determines if we are guilty or not guilty. you're really splitting hairs here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neckdemon Posted May 8, 2020 Share Posted May 8, 2020 no way. dude is mentally unstable 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRL Posted May 8, 2020 Share Posted May 8, 2020 Just because someone is "proven" with a "track record" doesn't mean they are worth the trouble. Both Brown and Josh Gordon are free agents who on paper would improve the WR corps: Brown https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BrowAn04.htm Gordon https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/G/GordJo02.htm But only a stupid team would put up with their "track record" of mental issues, erratic behavior and drugs. Invest in and develop the WR's on the roster, just because they're unproven doesn't mean they can't be good. Remember Robby Anderson wasn't a high draft pick, he was a pencil thin unknown UDFA in 2016 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetster Posted May 8, 2020 Share Posted May 8, 2020 4 minutes ago, KRL said: Just because someone is "proven" with a "track record" doesn't mean they are worth the trouble. Both Brown and Josh Gordon are free agents who on paper would improve the WR corps: Brown https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BrowAn04.htm Gordon https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/G/GordJo02.htm But only a stupid team would put up with their "track record" of mental issues, erratic behavior and drugs. Invest in and develop the WR's on the roster, just because they're unproven doesn't mean they can't be good. Remember Robby Anderson wasn't a high draft pick, he was a pencil thin unknown UDFA in 2016 I love the idea of developing our own WRs like the Steelers have perfected. Cager? Campbell? who knows what we have there? You take a guy like Cager & he has no expectations but to develop into a 4th WR to compliment Mims, Crowder & Perriman and imagine 3rd & 4th level CBs on him? With his height? He could specialize in being a backshoulder, or box out instant 3rd down conversion. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slimjasi Posted May 8, 2020 Share Posted May 8, 2020 3 hours ago, rangerous said: again you are wrong. true enough innocent means the person didn't do the crime but a not guilty verdict is the same thing as to how that person can still function in society. Nope. We weren't discussing the bolded. Someone wrote this: "Not according to a jury..... even if most believe he's guilty." And I simply pointed out that the jury's verdict said nothing about OJ's "innocence" or lack thereof. The bolded is true, but not relevant to the discussion at hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philc1 Posted May 8, 2020 Share Posted May 8, 2020 After seeing our demonic schedule I’d say yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philc1 Posted May 8, 2020 Share Posted May 8, 2020 4 hours ago, neckdemon said: no way. dude is mentally unstable Wait til we start 1-6 again next season we’ll all be mentally unstable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungaman Posted May 8, 2020 Share Posted May 8, 2020 1 minute ago, Philc1 said: Wait til we start 1-6 again next season we’ll all be mentally unstable We're Jet fans. there's no future tense involved here. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philc1 Posted May 8, 2020 Share Posted May 8, 2020 1 minute ago, Bungaman said: We're Jet fans. there's no future tense involved here. I can’t with these horrible seasons every year. This schedule is Goodell basically one big FU to the Johnsons Yeah the pats will be tanking and so will the jets Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rangerous Posted May 8, 2020 Share Posted May 8, 2020 2 hours ago, slimjasi said: Nope. We weren't discussing the bolded. Someone wrote this: "Not according to a jury..... even if most believe he's guilty." And I simply pointed out that the jury's verdict said nothing about OJ's "innocence" or lack thereof. The bolded is true, but not relevant to the discussion at hand. nice back track. the bottom line is OJ was found to be not guilty and therefore didn't do any time in the slam (at least for nicole and ron). he did get hit with a civil suit which he lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNJet Posted May 8, 2020 Share Posted May 8, 2020 Sure, lets take a chance on Roundup weed killer too. Non Hodgekins Lymphoma doesn't hurt much.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flgreen Posted May 8, 2020 Share Posted May 8, 2020 Search Results Dictionary in·no·cent /ˈinəsənt/ Learn to pronounce See definitions in: All Law Biblical adjective 1. not guilty of a crime or offense. "the arbitrary execution of an innocent man Search Results Dictionary not guilty /ˌnät ˈɡiltē/ phrase of guilty innocent, especially of a formal charge. "he pled not guilty to murder" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsfan80 Posted May 8, 2020 Share Posted May 8, 2020 36 minutes ago, flgreen said: Search Results Dictionary in·no·cent /ˈinəsənt/ Learn to pronounce See definitions in: All Law Biblical adjective 1. not guilty of a crime or offense. "the arbitrary execution of an innocent man Search Results Dictionary not guilty /ˌnät ˈɡiltē/ phrase of guilty innocent, especially of a formal charge. "he pled not guilty to murder" https://www.amacdonaldlaw.com/blog/2016/may/what-is-the-difference-between-innocent-and-not-/ WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INNOCENT AND NOT GUILTY? May 26, 2016 By MacDonald Law Office, LLC Share When you are going through a criminal case, you might be just as excited to think about a not guilty verdict as you are to think of proving your innocence. It is very important that you take a step back so you can take a look at the differences between innocent and not guilty. WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "INNOCENT" AND "NOT GUILTY"? In short, "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent." Innocent means that a person did not commit the crime. Not guilty means that the prosecution could not prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that a person committed the crime. Therefore, the court does not pronounce someone as “innocent” but rather “not guilty”. WHAT IS INNOCENT? When you've been charged of a crime, you are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. By the end of a criminal trial, you will either be declared "guilty" or "not guilty." Technically, the court never declares someone "innocent" because it is not necessary to prove actual innocence in order to be acquitted. The prosecution's job is to convince the jury that the defendant is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." Going the extra step of proving actual innocence is not required in order to avoid conviction. In some cases, evidence will arise that proves actual innocence; programs like The Actual Innocence Claim Policy and Protocol in Missouri endeavor to minimize false convictions by providing evidence that proves innocence. However, it still remains a part of our country's justice system that you do not need to be proven innocent in order to be declared "not guilty." WHAT IS "NOT GUILTY"? As mentioned before, the prosecution has to prove that a defendant committed a crime "beyond a reasonable doubt." This clause means that even if the jury largely thinks that a defendant committed a crime, they must not have any doubt about it. Doubt can be inserted into a case by the defense calling the prosecution's case into question. For example, this can be done by presenting witnesses who claim the defendant was with them at a different location when the crime occurred. Being found "not guilty" doesn't necessarily mean you are innocent. Instead, it means that the evidence was not strong enough for a guilty verdict. WHAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "INNOCENT" AND "NOT GUILTY" MEANS In conclusion, no one needs to prove that you are innocent in order to avoid conviction for the crime. Our criminal justice system does not require proof that you are innocent but rather, that the jury have no reasonable doubts about whether or not you committed the crime. If they do have doubts, you will be declared "not guilty" and charges will be dropped, regardless of whether or not you were actually innocent or guilty. This rule serves to protect the accused from being convicted unjustly. It is a much more difficult task to prove actual innocence than to prove there is room for reasonable doubt. If you have more questions about innocent vs. guilty verdicts or need experienced legal counsel for some other criminal defense matter, please feel free to contact the MacDonald Law Office, LLC today! We offer FREE, initial case evaluations. Source: FindLaw, "Actual Innocence and How It Differs From a Not Guilty Verdict," Ephrat Livni, Esq., accessed May 26, 2016 Nolo, "What's the Difference Between an Acquittal and a "Not Guilty" Verdict?," accessed Sep. 13, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flgreen Posted May 8, 2020 Share Posted May 8, 2020 1 hour ago, Jetsfan80 said: https://www.amacdonaldlaw.com/blog/2016/may/what-is-the-difference-between-innocent-and-not-/ WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INNOCENT AND NOT GUILTY? May 26, 2016 By MacDonald Law Office, LLC Share When you are going through a criminal case, you might be just as excited to think about a not guilty verdict as you are to think of proving your innocence. It is very important that you take a step back so you can take a look at the differences between innocent and not guilty. WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "INNOCENT" AND "NOT GUILTY"? In short, "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent." Innocent means that a person did not commit the crime. Not guilty means that the prosecution could not prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that a person committed the crime. Therefore, the court does not pronounce someone as “innocent” but rather “not guilty”. WHAT IS INNOCENT? When you've been charged of a crime, you are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. By the end of a criminal trial, you will either be declared "guilty" or "not guilty." Technically, the court never declares someone "innocent" because it is not necessary to prove actual innocence in order to be acquitted. The prosecution's job is to convince the jury that the defendant is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." Going the extra step of proving actual innocence is not required in order to avoid conviction. In some cases, evidence will arise that proves actual innocence; programs like The Actual Innocence Claim Policy and Protocol in Missouri endeavor to minimize false convictions by providing evidence that proves innocence. However, it still remains a part of our country's justice system that you do not need to be proven innocent in order to be declared "not guilty." WHAT IS "NOT GUILTY"? As mentioned before, the prosecution has to prove that a defendant committed a crime "beyond a reasonable doubt." This clause means that even if the jury largely thinks that a defendant committed a crime, they must not have any doubt about it. Doubt can be inserted into a case by the defense calling the prosecution's case into question. For example, this can be done by presenting witnesses who claim the defendant was with them at a different location when the crime occurred. Being found "not guilty" doesn't necessarily mean you are innocent. Instead, it means that the evidence was not strong enough for a guilty verdict. WHAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "INNOCENT" AND "NOT GUILTY" MEANS In conclusion, no one needs to prove that you are innocent in order to avoid conviction for the crime. Our criminal justice system does not require proof that you are innocent but rather, that the jury have no reasonable doubts about whether or not you committed the crime. If they do have doubts, you will be declared "not guilty" and charges will be dropped, regardless of whether or not you were actually innocent or guilty. This rule serves to protect the accused from being convicted unjustly. It is a much more difficult task to prove actual innocence than to prove there is room for reasonable doubt. If you have more questions about innocent vs. guilty verdicts or need experienced legal counsel for some other criminal defense matter, please feel free to contact the MacDonald Law Office, LLC today! We offer FREE, initial case evaluations. Source: FindLaw, "Actual Innocence and How It Differs From a Not Guilty Verdict," Ephrat Livni, Esq., accessed May 26, 2016 Nolo, "What's the Difference Between an Acquittal and a "Not Guilty" Verdict?," accessed Sep. 13, 2019 1) I could care less. I made my post because I thought the debate was silly on a football board. I gave Webster's definition's of both. 2) What you posted was an article giving the MacDonald Law firm's OPINION 3) The key words in their opinion are. ".the court never declares someone "innocent"" In the eyes of the law you are already innocent unless the crime is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. You are treated as innocent by the court. The court, nor the jury know what's in your heart. In common use, as defined by the dictionary, they are interchangeable. As I said, I really don't give a crap. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNJet Posted May 8, 2020 Share Posted May 8, 2020 6 minutes ago, flgreen said: 1) I could care less. I made my post because I thought the debate was silly on a football board. I gave Webeter's definition's of both. 2) What you posted was an article giving the MacDonald Law firms OPINION 3) The key words in their opinion are. ".the court never declares someone "innocent"" In the eyes of the law you are already innocent unless the crime is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. You are treated as innocent by the court. The court, nor the jury know what's in your heart. In common use, as defined by the dictionary, they are interchangeable. As I said, I really don't give a crap. LOL All the innocent stuff goes out the window after you've been accused in multiple states a few hundred times. Then it's just pretty much AB has the money to pay everyone off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flgreen Posted May 8, 2020 Share Posted May 8, 2020 15 minutes ago, TNJet said: All the innocent stuff goes out the window after you've been accused in multiple states a few hundred times. Then it's just pretty much AB has the money to pay everyone off. Sadly, that is one of the flaws in our judicial system. The alternative is much, much worst. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.