Rumor: Deshaun Watson 3-4 week suspension

[slats]

35 minutes ago, Biggs said:

As I said the NFL isn't capable of drawing that line.  It's an entirely self serving curropt organization deviod of morality.    I find it bizzare that you think the NFL should be looked at as a place to draw lines.  

FYI I will still watch a Harvey Weinstein or Woody Allen film if I want to.  I don't change the station if a Michael Jackson song comes on.  If there was nothing better on and an old Bill Cosby show came on I would watch it.  

This hasn't played out and just because I think he did something doesn't mean Rodger Goddell should reprsent my outrage.  Rodger Goddell is not an arbitor of societal morality.  His job is to protect the owners.

All of those people met with some sort of punishment. Even if they didn’t go to prison, they at least saw their reputations damaged or destroyed and their earnings disrupted. Watson’s fully guaranteed $230M is disgusting. I hope the league does something tangible, and then I will root against Watson for the rest of his career. 

[Jet Nut]

On 5/22/2022 at 9:36 AM, Bowles Movement said:

True but its not like its a party for the guy who is accused and assumed to be guilty before the trial.   

Like it was for Rothleisber and Manning?  

[JohnnyLV]

1 hour ago, slats said:

All of those people met with some sort of punishment. Even if they didn’t go to prison, they at least saw their reputations damaged or destroyed and their earnings disrupted. Watson’s fully guaranteed $230M is disgusting. I hope the league does something tangible, and then I will root against Watson for the rest of his career. 

Yeah trading for him was bad enough but then $230M guaranteed WITH the $1 million first year salary to protect against suspension was a giant FU to the league. They should have not approved the contract and released a statement that contracts designed to specifically offset suspensions would not be approved going forward.

[Biggs]

1 hour ago, slats said:

All of those people met with some sort of punishment. Even if they didn’t go to prison, they at least saw their reputations damaged or destroyed and their earnings disrupted. Watson’s fully guaranteed $230M is disgusting. I hope the league does something tangible, and then I will root against Watson for the rest of his career. 

In the case of Watson's guaranteed salary which is disgusting, that was bestowed upon him by an NFL owner.  One of the guys the commissioner works for.  

From my POV Cancelling art vs. dealing with the perpetrators of crimes is disgusting. 

[slats]

4 minutes ago, johnnysd said:

Yeah trading for him was bad enough but then $230M guaranteed WITH the $1 million first year salary to protect against suspension was a giant FU to the league. They should have not approved the contract and released a statement that contracts designed to specifically offset suspensions would not be approved going forward.

Yeah, Pats did the same thing for Brady in Deflate-gate. It should not be allowed. 

[Warfish]

2 minutes ago, slats said:

Yeah, Pats did the same thing for Brady in Deflate-gate. It should not be allowed. 

In a league with collective bargaining, where allowing it is good for Teams, and good for Players, who is going to argue this in the next CBA?

The League can't take it away on their own.  Contracts are managed by the CBA, not the rightful moral objections of some Fans.

Keep in mind how much of our forum would be all about this deal, calling it brilliant.....if Watson was a Jet today.  Another reason it'll never change.

[JohnnyLV]

On 5/28/2022 at 1:02 PM, DetroitRed said:

Amazing how many people know the intimate details of what happened.  We do know 2 grand juries actually heard  the evidence and declined to indict.  But keep watching one-sided TV shows 

This is such an ignorant statement. Not even allowing for the grand jury proceedings to have been mostly a shame from reports the statistics are actually far more damning in Watson's situation. 

He said/she said cases are almost impossible to convict because there will always be someone like several in this thread that will blame the woman or damn her for being a scam just looking for money or she deserved it or brought in on herself, blah blah blah. Almost all of which are usually about 100% untrue.

But let's look at the figures:

So less than 1% of all cases wind up with a conviction, largely because of the issues I mentioned above.

But the Watson case DID get referred to a prosecutor so the the reality is that it was among only 1% of cases that the police and DA felt was warranted enough to go to a prosecutor and before a Grand Jury. Meaning they thought he was WAY more likely than not to have been guilty.

So instead of saying, it was seen by a grand jury and dismissed, it is more factual to say that it was a RARE case that even got that far. Which is really incriminating if you think about it.

Moreover, he is being sued by now 23 different women with others still not seeking ANYTHING but reporting the same predatory behavior and your opinion is that he has been vindicated?

Also remember the personal conduct policy is a CIVIL level of burden which means that all you need to think is that he is more likely than not to have committed the actions than not. Is it more plausible that 23 women are just trying to lie and railroad him, or that Watson who has access for free to legitimate massage whenever he needs it for free, was seeking out attractive female masseuses for something other than massage? And it was predatory because he was specifically targeting legitimate masseuses. And let's face it, just like the Hollywood sexual abuse and quid pro quo cases that are all coming out, there are probably an equal number who do what he asked or was not traumatized by it or actually offered it to begin with.

Someone that does not think it more likely than not he committed these crimes just has his head deep in the denial/slut shaming sand. We are not talking about taking Watson's freedom away (which rightfully has a completely different level of burden of proof) we are talking about whether that behavior should be even tacitly condoned/tolerated without serious disciplinary actions.

 

[DetroitRed]

32 minutes ago, johnnysd said:

This is such an ignorant statement. Not even allowing for the grand jury proceedings to have been mostly a shame from reports the statistics are actually far more damning in Watson's situation. 

He said/she said cases are almost impossible to convict because there will always be someone like several in this thread that will blame the woman or damn her for being a scam just looking for money or she deserved it or brought in on herself, blah blah blah. Almost all of which are usually about 100% untrue.

But let's look at the figures:

So less than 1% of all cases wind up with a conviction, largely because of the issues I mentioned above.

But the Watson case DID get referred to a prosecutor so the the reality is that it was among only 1% of cases that the police and DA felt was warranted enough to go to a prosecutor and before a Grand Jury. Meaning they thought he was WAY more likely than not to have been guilty.

So instead of saying, it was seen by a grand jury and dismissed, it is more factual to say that it was a RARE case that even got that far. Which is really incriminating if you think about it.

Moreover, he is being sued by now 23 different women with others still not seeking ANYTHING but reporting the same predatory behavior and your opinion is that he has been vindicated?

Also remember the personal conduct policy is a CIVIL level of burden which means that all you need to think is that he is more likely than not to have committed the actions than not. Is it more plausible that 23 women are just trying to lie and railroad him, or that Watson who has access for free to legitimate massage whenever he needs it for free, was seeking out attractive female masseuses for something other than massage? And it was predatory because he was specifically targeting legitimate masseuses. And let's face it, just like the Hollywood sexual abuse and quid pro quo cases that are all coming out, there are probably an equal number who do what he asked or was not traumatized by it or actually offered it to begin with.

Someone that does not think it more likely than not he committed these crimes just has his head deep in the denial/slut shaming sand. We are not talking about taking Watson's freedom away (which rightfully has a completely different level of burden of proof) we are talking about whether that behavior should be even tacitly condoned/tolerated without serious disciplinary actions.

 

Saying that,  the people who actually heard the evidence are the best people to judge is ignorant.  Bizarro world.  And I could’ve guessed that was the Washington Post or Snopes , without the confirmation 

[JoJoTownsell1]

50 minutes ago, johnnysd said:

So instead of saying, it was seen by a grand jury and dismissed, it is more factual to say that it was a RARE case that even got that far. Which is really incriminating if you think about it.

 

 

It's also very likely that because of the national headlines the DA felt it necessary to take it to the grand jury so as to not look weak on sexual assault claims. 

51 minutes ago, johnnysd said:

Moreover, he is being sued by now 23 different women with others still not seeking ANYTHING but reporting the same predatory behavior and your opinion is that he has been vindicated?

This is where Watson defenders look weakest. It's unlikely 1 women would make up a fake sexual assault claim, even more unlikely 2 separate women make similar complaints. When you get to 23, it's impossible to believe Watson has done nothing criminal. 

Obviously, you can't be sent to jail based on this logic, but you can certainly be suspended for a LONG time with this fact pattern. Trevor Bauer was suspended by the MLB for 324 games without a conviction.....

[JohnnyLV]

11 minutes ago, JoJoTownsell1 said:

It's also very likely that because of the national headlines the DA felt it necessary to take it to the grand jury so as to not look weak on sexual assault claims. 

This is where Watson defenders look weakest. It's unlikely 1 women would make up a fake sexual assault claim, even more unlikely 2 separate women make similar complaints. When you get to 23, it's impossible to believe Watson has done nothing criminal. 

Obviously, you can't be sent to jail based on this logic, but you can certainly be suspended for a LONG time with this fact pattern. Trevor Bauer was suspended by the MLB for 324 games without a conviction.....

Yeah there is some possibility with that but on the other hand from the reports I read it was also sort of a token GJ with only 1 case being presented and that considered one of the weakest.

OJ was found innocent but guilty in Civil trial. Does anyone that he is not more likely than not to have committed the murders?

[DetroitRed]

24 minutes ago, JoJoTownsell1 said:

It's also very likely that because of the national headlines the DA felt it necessary to take it to the grand jury so as to not look weak on sexual assault claims. 

This is where Watson defenders look weakest. It's unlikely 1 women would make up a fake sexual assault claim, even more unlikely 2 separate women make similar complaints. When you get to 23, it's impossible to believe Watson has done nothing criminal. 

Obviously, you can't be sent to jail based on this logic, but you can certainly be suspended for a LONG time with this fact pattern. Trevor Bauer was suspended by the MLB for 324 games without a conviction.....

There are just about as many women who are defending him.  I guess they mean nothing.  There are 24 Jurors who also heard the evidence.  Do they count?

And sure, suspend him.   locking him up is different 

[JoJoTownsell1]

1 minute ago, DetroitRed said:

There are just about as many women who are defending him.  I guess they mean nothing.  

I have no idea what this even means. Were these women witnesses who claim the assaults didn't happen or are these his sisters, cousins, friends? Who cares if he can find women who defend him as a person? If you are charged with rape or murder, no one cares if you can find other people who think you are a good guy. Plenty of "good people" commit crimes. 

2 minutes ago, DetroitRed said:

And sure, suspend him.   locking him up is different 

Who in this thread has suggested he go to jail without a trial? 

[Doggin94it]

On 5/27/2022 at 10:04 PM, Dwight Englewood said:

The best evidence they have on Watson is a screenshot from a text conversation in which Watson asks if a masseuse “focuses on the glute area”

 

There is no proof here.  Not beyond a reasonable doubt or even preponderance of the evidence not even close.  He shouldn’t be suspended.  This is the dumbest thing ever.

No. The best evidence they have on Watson is text messages from Watson apologizing for making masseuses feel bad, admissions from Watson that he saw that at least some of them were "uncomfortable" during the massages, and claims by Watson that he and at least some of the masseuses had "consensual" sexual interactions ... plus 23 interlocking and mutually confirming stories of similar behavior. That's a whole lot to waive away as "bitches lie," and if you don't understand why Watson acknowledging that one of the women accusing him of this behavior was exceptionally uncomfortable in the moment dramatically undermines the claim that this was all a later-invented ploy to hold him up for money, I just don't know what to tell you.

On 5/28/2022 at 4:02 PM, DetroitRed said:

Amazing how many people know the intimate details of what happened.  We do know 2 grand juries actually heard  the evidence and declined to indict.  But keep watching one-sided TV shows 

Amazing how many people think that a grand jury saying "we doubt that you can prove this beyond a reasonable doubt" - after only hearing from 2 of the victims, IIRC - means that it's unlikely that he did it. How are people this ignorant of the standards of proof at a criminal trial?

Let me put it this way: if a jury is 75% sure he did it, does their verdict go in favor of Watson or against him? If you know the answer, @DetroitRed, just shout it out. Because right now, it doesn't look like you do.

[Doggin94it]

16 minutes ago, DetroitRed said:

There are just about as many women who are defending him.  I guess they mean nothing.  There are 24 Jurors who also heard the evidence.  Do they count?

And sure, suspend him.   locking him up is different 

"But what about all the women I didn't assault" is the world's stupidest argument

 

[DetroitRed]

6 minutes ago, Doggin94it said:

"But what about all the women I didn't assault" is the world's stupidest argument

 

True .  Now find someone who is making that argument.  

[Bronx]

 

[Waka Flocka Flacco]

10 minutes ago, Doggin94it said:

"But what about all the women I didn't assault" is the world's stupidest argument

There are no good arguments here. Buzbee isn't orchestrating anything. There's not that much difference between trying a case with one plaintiff and trying a case with a thousand plaintiffs, but they're both markedly different from trying one with 20. The only way this many people stay on message this long is if they're all telling the truth.

[T0mShane]

23 minutes ago, Bronx said:

 

Transaction’s

 

[Doggin94it]

29 minutes ago, DetroitRed said:

True .  Now find someone who is making that argument.  

Anyone who thinks other women saying "he's always treated me well" is relevant to whether the accusations against him are true or false.

So ... you?

[Waka Flocka Flacco]

1 minute ago, Doggin94it said:

Anyone who thinks other women saying "he's always treated me well" is relevant to whether the accusations against him are true or false.

So ... you?

I mean, I think it's relevant. Pretty much any evidence of any conduct consistent or inconsistent with any allegation would be. The issue with character etc. isn't relevance, it's prejudice>probative.

[Doggin94it]

5 minutes ago, Waka Flocka Flacco said:

I mean, I think it's relevant. Pretty much any evidence of any conduct consistent or inconsistent with any allegation would be. The issue with character etc. isn't relevance, it's prejudice>probative.

Ha. But also, strong disagree in cases like this, because there's no "general character for not abusing people". Think of how many kids were sexually abused by a teacher, for example - and then compare that to the number of kids that the teacher interacted with. By definition, the folks who get abused are going to be a small fraction of the total. So if you have 400 kids who were in a teacher's class over the years saying "he never touched me" and 20 saying "ok, but he touched us" ... the 400 don't tell you anything meaningful about whether the 20 are telling the truth.

[Dunnie]

Pop Quiz : What do you do with a guy that is so rich he believes his actions are above any social standard or code ... and above recourse.

Answer : You give him 200 million more dollars of course.

[Bowles Movement]

4 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

Like it was for Rothleisber and Manning?  

I dont think it was pleasant for them    I was thinking of Depp, Kavanaugh and Musk but there are plenty of examples.
 
What  point are you trying to make?   That its no big deal to be accused of sexual assault if you are innocent?

[Waka Flocka Flacco]

9 minutes ago, Doggin94it said:

strong disagree

I mean, okay, you can disagree but I don't think it's debatable. If Watson's mom says he's a nice kid who would never do rape, it tends, however microscopically slightly, to demonstrate that he did not do rape to these rape victims. Bias is a different issue. Weight is a different issue. But as long as words mean things, the alternative facts from the alternative ZJ providers unquestionably minimally satisfy relevance. The rules of evidence dictate how much they matter in court, but not how much they matter in hearts and minds. I don't think the "he's always treated me well" argument is or should be at all persuasive here either, but there's not some fundamental principle that says we're right and somebody who buys it is wrong. You can't say that there is no set of circumstances where you could be sufficiently convinced that something is so out of character for somebody that you'd conclude that it didn't happen. Clearly these are not those circumstances, but they wouldn't have the evidentiary exclusion if it wasn't otherwise impossible to implement some kind of bright line.

[bla bla bla]

4 hours ago, Warfish said:

In a league with collective bargaining, where allowing it is good for Teams, and good for Players, who is going to argue this in the next CBA?

The League can't take it away on their own.  Contracts are managed by the CBA, not the rightful moral objections of some Fans.

Keep in mind how much of our forum would be all about this deal, calling it brilliant.....if Watson was a Jet today.  Another reason it'll never change.

Teams and players benefit from pushing money around, I don't think that should go anywhere but when you are talking suspension IMO it should be a % of your guaranteed money that gets docked based on % of games you will miss. 

I think players and teams would go for this type of clause without too much push back.

[RutgersJetFan]

2 hours ago, Waka Flocka Flacco said:

There are no good arguments here. Buzbee isn't orchestrating anything. There's not that much difference between trying a case with one plaintiff and trying a case with a thousand plaintiffs, but they're both markedly different from trying one with 20. The only way this many people stay on message this long is if they're all telling the truth.

The two with Gumbel came across exactly like the NSync dude in the Michael Jackson doc and the captain at Duke. 100% telling truth. 

[bla bla bla]

2 hours ago, DetroitRed said:

There are just about as many women who are defending him.  I guess they mean nothing. 

Is....this an argument? Just looking for a little clarity because I've always thought Epstein was a stand up guy...

3 hours ago, DetroitRed said:

There are 24 Jurors who also heard the evidence.  Do they count?

And sure, suspend him.   locking him up is different 

If 17 of the 24 jurors thought he was guilty he wouldn't have been indicted. They count but not without context.

 

IMO he should be suspended a year and lose $46m (average of 1 year salary)

[DonCorleone]

On 5/17/2022 at 9:22 PM, Jetty said:

Surprised he would even get suspended since the case was thrown out.

It pays to have the NFL behind you no matter the crimes one's truly guilty of. Just ask Ray Lewis. 

[Hal N of Provo]

 

[T0mShane]

Buzbee working his magic, as always. At this point, the plaintiffs are going to end up owing Watson money.

[Jetsfan80]

4 hours ago, Doggin94it said:

That's a whole lot to waive away as "bitches lie,"

 

Sidebar:  @The Crusher can this become the new name of the Mafia forum?

 

@Nolder @Spoot-Face @Beaver @Stark @Drums @Barry McCockinner @jvill 51 @AVM @Verbal @Jets Voice of Reason @Greenseed4

[Drums]

18 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

Sidebar:  @The Crusher can this become the new name of the Mafia forum?

 

@Nolder @Spoot-Face @Beaver @Stark @Drums @Barry McCockinner @jvill 51 @AVM @Verbal @Jets Voice of Reason @Greenseed4

[DetroitRed]

4 hours ago, Doggin94it said:

Anyone who thinks other women saying "he's always treated me well" is relevant to whether the accusations against him are true or false.

So ... you?

Nope.  You actually have to cite where I made that argument. That’s how it works. Otherwise, you are mind reading or speaking for me.  Thank you very much

[DetroitRed]

2 hours ago, bla bla bla said:

Is....this an argument? Just looking for a little clarity because I've always thought Epstein was a stand up guy...

If 17 of the 24 jurors thought he was guilty he wouldn't have been indicted. They count but not without context.

 

IMO he should be suspended a year and lose $46m (average of 1 year salary)

Sure,  suspend him

[The Crusher]

1 hour ago, Hal N of Provo said:

 

$230,000,000 doesn’t get you what it use too!