The Jets Version of Rashee Rice. No Wonder We Hit CB in Draft & UDFA

[32EBoozer]

30 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

The inescapable problem with your logic is the unintended consequences: by setting such a precedent that the off-hours illegal behavior of anyone who is ever convicted of anything - from reckless driving to a prior crime - is the responsibility of future employers (and the government, I think you wanted as well), those people will become permanently unemployable members of society because any and all future employers - including the government as an employer - would never take on the risks of what these people might do when they're not at work.

It would be like charging POTUS for the crimes his son or brother committed!

[Doggin94it]

1 hour ago, PepPep said:

I never feel bad for the big corporation or the government or the millionaire in a lawsuit. lol. 

This innocent man almost died. Went through major trauma that will probably never leave him. And will probably have physical issues the rest of his life because of this accident. If he wants to go after every single possible entity involved in this accident, he should. Let the courts figure it would. The Jets have plenty of lawyers and so does the state of NJ to defend themselves with. And while it may not be fully justifiable, and cost unnecessary money, something like this will at least bring more attention to a horrific accident that should never have happened. Too many people get away with reckless driving and too many innocent victims die from it. Its absurd. There are enough car accidents as it is. 

And Echols should have been cut for this incident. I did not know it was this bad when he was suspended. I did not realize there was a near fatal crash and he had an extensive history. The Jets did. I'm not saying they were legally obligated to, but morally, they should have terminated his contract, or traded him.   

So long as by "involved in this accident" you mean "having a known causal relationship with the accident by failing, in some articulable way that impacted the accident, to do what they reasonably should have done", sure.

If you mean "they should sue Echols' parents for having raised him, the University of Kentucky for how he was educated, Southaven Mississippi and the State of Mississippi for how he was brought up, Dodge for selling him a car, and the State of New Jersey for having roads to drive on" ... um ... no. That's not how any of this works, and absent some factual basis to think something improper at work caused the accident, suing his employer because the accident after he left work makes no more sense than it would if his employer was McDonalds or Microsoft or The United Way or Sister Mary Theresa's Charitable Home for Adorable Orphans

[Gastineau Lives]

2 minutes ago, Doggin94it said:

So long as by "involved in this accident" you mean "having a known causal relationship with the accident by failing, in some articulable way that impacted the accident, to do what they reasonably should have done", sure.

If you mean "they should sue Echols' parents for having raised him, the University of Kentucky for how he was educated, Southaven Mississippi and the State of Mississippi for how he was brought up, Dodge for selling him a car, and the State of New Jersey for having roads to drive on" ... um ... no. That's not how any of this works, and absent some factual basis to think something improper at work caused the accident, suing his employer because the accident after he left work makes no more sense than it would if his employer was McDonalds or Microsoft or The United Way or Sister Mary Theresa's Charitable Home for Adorable Orphans

If they donate to a charity, should their employer get a tax write off? 

[PepPep]

19 minutes ago, Doggin94it said:

So long as by "involved in this accident" you mean "having a known causal relationship with the accident by failing, in some articulable way that impacted the accident, to do what they reasonably should have done", sure.

If you mean "they should sue Echols' parents for having raised him, the University of Kentucky for how he was educated, Southaven Mississippi and the State of Mississippi for how he was brought up, Dodge for selling him a car, and the State of New Jersey for having roads to drive on" ... um ... no. That's not how any of this works, and absent some factual basis to think something improper at work caused the accident, suing his employer because the accident after he left work makes no more sense than it would if his employer was McDonalds or Microsoft or The United Way or Sister Mary Theresa's Charitable Home for Adorable Orphans

He can go ahead and try to sue all those ppl. Up to him and his lawyers. Dude suffered an actual near death accident. I wont hold it against him. People try to sue everyone for everything these days, people who hadn't actually suffered anything. 

People are getting high and mighty here trying to explain the law to me when if something like this happened to them they would probably be trying to sue everyone in sight.

[Matt39]

2 minutes ago, PepPep said:

He can go ahead and try to sue all those ppl. Up to him and his lawyers. Dude suffered an actual near death accident. I wont hold it against him. People try to sue everyone for everything these days, people who hadn't actually suffered anything. 

People are getting high and mighty here trying to explain the law to me when if something like this happened to them they would probably be trying to sue everyone in sight.

Could probably include the judge and the DA who didn’t revoke his license too if it’s been this long of a pattern

[Gastineau Lives]

7 minutes ago, PepPep said:

He can go ahead and try to sue all those ppl. Up to him and his lawyers. Dude suffered an actual near death accident. I wont hold it against him. People try to sue everyone for everything these days, people who hadn't actually suffered anything. 

People are getting high and mighty here trying to explain the law to me when if something like this happened to them they would probably be trying to sue everyone in sight.

I wish I knew who to sue when this fine young woman rammed me and my brother in the exact middle of the truck and flipped us over. Caught up to us from directly behind to do it. 

[PepPep]

3 minutes ago, Gastineau Lives said:

I wish I knew who to sue when this fine young woman rammed me and my brother in the exact middle of the truck and flipped us over. Caught up to us from directly behind to do it. 

[IndianaJet]

3 hours ago, Dcat said:

I'm on that road every day.  So is my daughter and son.  It's always busy and when it's not the usual speed is about 30-40 mph.   What he did there is unconscionable.  F--K him.  Should be suspended again since the 1st suspension was typical NFL pussy-esque.  I hope the plaintiff collects Echol's entire rookie contract, all $3,654,185 of it.  

Article says the speed limit is 50 mph.

I don't down play your concern about you and your family traveling that road.  But I'm not aware of any place where the speed limit is 50 mph but drivers usually only go 30-40 mph when the road is not busy.

[Darnold's Forehead]

Wait why aren’t they suing Echols’ parents as well?

[Darnold's Forehead]

3 hours ago, Dcat said:

I'm on that road every day.  So is my daughter and son.  It's always busy and when it's not the usual speed is about 30-40 mph.   What he did there is unconscionable.  F--K him.  Should be suspended again since the 1st suspension was typical NFL pussy-esque.  I hope the plaintiff collects Echol's entire rookie contract, all $3,654,185 of it.  

Anyone driving 30-40 in a 50 (lol) zone deserves to have their license taken away just as much as Echols.

[Matt39]

5 minutes ago, Darnold's Forehead said:

Anyone driving 30-40 in a 50 (lol) zone deserves to have their license taken away just as much as Echols.

Did you watch the  video?

[32EBoozer]

27 minutes ago, Darnold's Forehead said:

Wait why aren’t they suing Echols’ parents as well?

And filing against his future offspring! 10 year’s of servitude from 18-28

[Joe W. Namath]

The one thing I dont like about this front office is their enabling of criminals.  Echols and that other POS dalvin cook.

Clean this up Joe!!!

[Dcat]

1 hour ago, IndianaJet said:

Article says the speed limit is 50 mph.

I don't down play your concern about you and your family traveling that road.  But I'm not aware of any place where the speed limit is 50 mph but drivers usually only go 30-40 mph when the road is not busy.

Did you watch the vid clip?  Road was pretty busy when he did it, wasn't it?  And that's how it almost always is during the day and I don't recall the speed limit being 50 there either.  I will check next time I am there.  If it is the eastbound stretch between Park Ave and Rte 24, which is what it looks like,  @section314 should know since he lives nearby.   

It's not just the speed anyway...  look at HOW he is driving.  Aggressive to nth degree.  The kid is a moron and dangerous.  

[Dcat]

1 hour ago, Darnold's Forehead said:

Anyone driving 30-40 in a 50 (lol) zone deserves to have their license taken away just as much as Echols.

Anyone driving like he was on the video should not have license.  

1.  I don't recall the limit as 50 that stretch (assuming it's the one I'm thinking). 

2. Traffic there doesn't flow 50 during the day in the 1/4 mile between Park and Rte 24.  Particularly when it's busy which is most of the time. 

3. Watch HOW he drives in the video. Why is he being super aggressive?  I guess that's ok if he's at or even below the limit?  Echolls is a douche. 

 

[Doggin94it]

1 hour ago, PepPep said:

He can go ahead and try to sue all those ppl. Up to him and his lawyers. Dude suffered an actual near death accident. I wont hold it against him. People try to sue everyone for everything these days, people who hadn't actually suffered anything. 

People are getting high and mighty here trying to explain the law to me when if something like this happened to them they would probably be trying to sue everyone in sight.

No. That's the type of thing that gets you sanctioned by a competent judge.

Again, I do this for a living. You aren't allowed to file frivolous cases, and doing stuff like that can result in bar related consequences. Doesn't have those consequences often enough, but it absolutely can, because you are not allowed to do stuff like that

[ncjetman]

He should also sue BMW for not landing right side up. Cases like this give ambulance-chasing lawyers a bad name.... oh wait, they already have a bad name.

Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

[PepPep]

23 minutes ago, Doggin94it said:

No. That's the type of thing that gets you sanctioned by a competent judge.

Again, I do this for a living. You aren't allowed to file frivolous cases, and doing stuff like that can result in bar related consequences. Doesn't have those consequences often enough, but it absolutely can, because you are not allowed to do stuff like that

Then let the judge sanction him if he thinks these are frivolous. And all will be right in the world. 

[section314]

32 minutes ago, Dcat said:

Did you watch the vid clip?  Road was pretty busy when he did it, wasn't it?  And that's how it almost always is during the day and I don't recall the speed limit being 50 there either.  I will check next time I am there.  If it is the eastbound stretch between Park Ave and Rte 24, which is what it looks like,  @section314 should know since he lives nearby.   

It's not just the speed anyway...  look at HOW he is driving.  Aggressive to nth degree.  The kid is a moron and dangerous.  

This was on Columbia Turnpike, which goes from Morristown up past So.Orange. The section this happened was between rte.24 going east up to Florham Park, right across the road from Morristown Airport . It’s maybe a 2-3 mile stretch but becomes crowded when you get into Florham Park. Crazy place to be driving that fast. I could see it happening on 24 but not on that road.It’s 5 mins away from the complex. Nuts.

[32EBoozer]

47 minutes ago, section314 said:

This was on Columbia Turnpike, which goes from Morristown up past So.Orange. The section this happened was between rte.24 going east up to Florham Park, right across the road from Morristown Airport . It’s maybe a 2-3 mile stretch but becomes crowded when you get into Florham Park. Crazy place to be driving that fast. I could see it happening on 24 but not on that road.It’s 5 mins away from the complex. Nuts.

@section314 reveals his job

[Barry McCockinner]

84MPH!!?

terrifying.

[Sperm Edwards]

4 hours ago, PepPep said:

Nah.....if this kept happening and the Jets knew about it and then he almost killed someone and got suspended by the NFL for a game, they should have cut him loose or moved him for peanuts just to get him off the team. The precedent would be - don't be stupid and don't be a repeat offender. 

If the victim wants to sue the Jets or NJ, let him. I have no problem with it. Like I said, let the court decide. If he gets nothing out of it, he gets nothing out of it. 

It's frivolous. The Jets have no part in this. He wasn't acting in any official capacity.

If you drive drunk and kill someone this weekend, is your employer responsible?

It's preposterous, and moreover, it's immoral. "Oh, these people have money. Sue them just because they have money even though they don't owe anything and bear not responsibility in any way; worst case scenario you don't get anything."

The Jets should countersue for the cost of defending this as a frivolous lawsuit. They won't, because of the optics, but they'd be right to do it and the defendant would probably end up paying. 

IF he was driving as part of his employment - literally if he was paid to drive here or there, and was on the clock when it happened - then and only then should the Jets be a defendant.

What you're calling for is wrong, dishonest, and flat-out immoral as nothing but a blackmail shakedown of an innocent party. 

[Matt39]

13 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

It's frivolous. The Jets have no part in this. He wasn't acting in any official capacity.

If you drive drunk and kill someone this weekend, is your employer responsible?

It's preposterous, and moreover, it's immoral. "Oh, these people have money. Sue them just because they have money even though they don't owe anything and bear not responsibility in any way; worst case scenario you don't get anything."

The Jets should countersue for the cost of defending this as a frivolous lawsuit. They won't, because of the optics, but they'd be right to do it and the defendant would probably end up paying. 

IF he was driving as part of his employment - literally if he was paid to drive here or there, and was on the clock when it happened - then and only then should the Jets be a defendant.

What you're calling for is wrong, dishonest, and flat-out immoral as nothing but a blackmail shakedown of an innocent party. 

It’s on the judge to decide. I’d like to see Echols driving history before making any conclusions. Connecting fault to the Jets seems like a reach though. As far as Echols, he’s lucky he’s not in jail because the video it looks intentional. 

[Matt39]

20 minutes ago, Barry McCockinner said:

84MPH!!?

terrifying.

He was doing 111 at his peak and ran the person off the road paralyzing them. 

[Sperm Edwards]

2 hours ago, Matt39 said:

It’s on the judge to decide. I’d like to see Echols driving history before making any conclusions. Connecting fault to the Jets seems like a reach though. As far as Echols, he’s lucky he’s not in jail because the video it looks intentional. 

I’m only referring to the ridiculous idea of team liability. Like, what did they do? If he was transporting equipment or delivering a pizza for them, ok. This is a guy breaking the law, endangering others, on his own time.

To put it kindly, Echols is a selfish ass driving like that, with other people on the road no less.

[Matt39]

22 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I’m only referring to the ridiculous idea of team liability. Like, what did they do? If he was transporting equipment or delivering a pizza for them, ok. This is a guy breaking the law, endangering others, on his own time.

To put it kindly, Echols is a selfish ass driving like that, with other people on the road no less.

It appears his complaint is insinuating the Jets had prior knowledge of Echols being a potential threat and failed to do anything about it/kept employing him. I’m sure their background check predraft etc comes into play. Whether that flys or not who knows. Wouldn’t shock me if the Jets settle for an undisclosed amount to make it go away. 

[Sperm Edwards]

1 hour ago, Matt39 said:

It appears his complaint is insinuating the Jets had prior knowledge of Echols being a potential threat and failed to do anything about it/kept employing him. I’m sure their background check predraft etc comes into play. Whether that flys or not who knows. Wouldn’t shock me if the Jets settle for an undisclosed amount to make it go away. 

Still not seeing what one thing has to do with the other.

[nycdan]

2 hours ago, Matt39 said:

It appears his complaint is insinuating the Jets had prior knowledge of Echols being a potential threat and failed to do anything about it/kept employing him. I’m sure their background check predraft etc comes into play. Whether that flys or not who knows. Wouldn’t shock me if the Jets settle for an undisclosed amount to make it go away. 

Your employer has no legal obligation to 'do anything' about your criminal behavior if it is on your own time and not part of the work you do for them.  Nobody is defending Echols' behavior, but you are completely misguided if you think the Jets have any more responsibility for this than Burger King would if one of their cashiers did it on their own time.  You are conflating deep pockets with increased responsibility, which is the hallowed ground of every ambulance chaser out there but, as other have said, just isn't a thing.  

I don't recall hearing of the Raiders being liable for Ruggs....or the Patriots for Hernandez...and so on.  By your 'logic', the Dolphins would be responsible for child-support for Tyreek Hill's babies.  Everyone but you and the victim's attorney can see how much nonsense this is.  If it weren't the legal system would blow up with lawsuits overnight.

If you want to blame the Jets for football things, go right ahead.  But this sounds like something you are trying to wish into existence.

[Matt39]

20 minutes ago, nycdan said:

Your employer has no legal obligation to 'do anything' about your criminal behavior if it is on your own time and not part of the work you do for them.  Nobody is defending Echols' behavior, but you are completely misguided if you think the Jets have any more responsibility for this than Burger King would if one of their cashiers did it on their own time.  You are conflating deep pockets with increased responsibility, which is the hallowed ground of every ambulance chaser out there but, as other have said, just isn't a thing.  

I don't recall hearing of the Raiders being liable for Ruggs....or the Patriots for Hernandez...and so on.  By your 'logic', the Dolphins would be responsible for child-support for Tyreek Hill's babies.  Everyone but you and the victim's attorney can see how much nonsense this is.  If it weren't the legal system would blow up with lawsuits overnight.

If you want to blame the Jets for football things, go right ahead.  But this sounds like something you are trying to wish into existence.

Who’s wishing it into existence? It’s currently in existence as he’s suing the team

[JetsfaninNorthHollywood]

[New York Mick]

21 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Yeah that was a bit much for me, too.

I absolutely feel bad for the innocent victim, needing surgery and all, but that’s just ridiculous to blame an equally-innocent party purely because they have deeper pockets than the actual offender. What’s the implication, that future car accidents of anyone with a reckless driving history (which the team may not even know about) becomes the financial responsibility of any/all of his future employers? That’s just ridiculous. Such people would be permanently unemployable.

This isn’t like serving booze through the end of football games knowing thousands of fans (compounded when tallying each game) will be driving a car within 20-30 minutes.

Jets should get this dismissed as frivolous. Even tossing him a few bucks out of legitimate sympathy sets a bad precedent & makes them (and all such teams/companies) more likely to be future targets.

If the voters want to get laws passed so past reckless driving people aren’t permitted to buy, lease, rent, or even borrow a car with faster than a 10-second 0-60 time - certainly nothing with this type of power/speed - then pass a law. Actually I don’t think something like that is a half-bad idea, now that I mention it. Until then, particularly when there’s no alcohol involved and no recall-style car manufacturing defects, blame for the reckless driving is the fault of the reckless driver.

There’s really no point for any street legal vehicle to be that fast or fast at all. As far as suing everyone including the person that committed the crime is asinine but leave no stone unturned. It’s literally the Jets fcking motto lol 

[JKlecko]

On 5/5/2024 at 11:50 AM, PepPep said:

Nah.....if this kept happening and the Jets knew about it and then he almost killed someone and got suspended by the NFL for a game, they should have cut him loose or moved him for peanuts just to get him off the team. The precedent would be - don't be stupid and don't be a repeat offender. 

If the victim wants to sue the Jets or NJ, let him. I have no problem with it. Like I said, let the court decide. If he gets nothing out of it, he gets nothing out of it. 

I'm not happy that he did what he did, but a team can't punish a player for how he drives.  The CBA would intervene.  A team could punish him for drunk driving, but not for speeding.  The state of NJ should never have given him a warning earlier when he was way over the limit on the same road.  Particularly if they had done any research and seen that he had a history of driving too fast/recklessly in Mississippi.  They should have suspended his license then for at least 30 days, if not 90 and hit him with a big fine.

After the accident, they definitely should have taken away his license for a minimum of 90 days and hit him with a big fine.  

The employer has no culpability in this. Neither does the state of NJ unless they did something negligently or cut corners on the guardrail to save money or the plaintiff wants to make an issue out of why the state of NJ didn't suspend Echols' drivers license.  IMO that would be valid.  States are too hesitant to  take away drivers licenses from bad drivers and too quick to hand out driving licenses to everyone.  People cannot drive any more.  They don't pay attention to the road and what others are doing.  They're texting, talking on the phone or to a passenger, don't use turn signals, don't yield the right of way, brake for green lights, stop at yield signs needlessly when there's no one coming, can't judge speed and distance or intentionally just pull out in front of you.  Car registration and license fees are a money maker for the state so they're loathe to suspend/take away drivers' licenses, but imo they need to in order to make the roads safer and to get people's attention where it belongs, on the road and their driving.

 

[JKlecko]

On 5/5/2024 at 12:49 PM, Darnold's Forehead said:

Anyone driving 30-40 in a 50 (lol) zone deserves to have their license taken away just as much as Echols.

Especially if they're driving in the left lane.

[PepPep]

14 hours ago, JKlecko said:

I'm not happy that he did what he did, but a team can't punish a player for how he drives.  The CBA would intervene.  A team could punish him for drunk driving, but not for speeding.  The state of NJ should never have given him a warning earlier when he was way over the limit on the same road.  Particularly if they had done any research and seen that he had a history of driving too fast/recklessly in Mississippi.  They should have suspended his license then for at least 30 days, if not 90 and hit him with a big fine.

After the accident, they definitely should have taken away his license for a minimum of 90 days and hit him with a big fine.  

The employer has no culpability in this. Neither does the state of NJ unless they did something negligently or cut corners on the guardrail to save money or the plaintiff wants to make an issue out of why the state of NJ didn't suspend Echols' drivers license.  IMO that would be valid.  States are too hesitant to  take away drivers licenses from bad drives and too quick to hand out driving licenses to everyone.  People cannot drive any more.  They don't pay attention to the road and what others are doing.  They're texting, talking on the phone or to a passenger, don't use turn signals, don't yield the right of way, brake for green lights, stop at yield signs needlessly when there's no one coming, can't judge speed and distance or intentionally just pull out in front of you.  Car registration and license fees are a money maker for the state so they're loathe to suspend/take away drivers' licenses, but imo they need to in order to make the roads safer and to get people's attention where it belongs, on the road and their driving.

 

I think people are getting too hung on on the legality of the situation and, essentially, trying to do the job of the courts. 

The man can sue or TRY to sue NJ and/or the Jets if he wants to. It may be frivolous but the guy suffered a serious life changing accident because of this. It's not like he's running a scam. If its deemed frivolous, it will be thrown out. If not, there may be some sort of consequence. That's not for me to decide. 

To say that the Jets and/or the state of NJ are not responsible. Well, maybe they're not. Maybe the courts will deem that they are. I don't know and can't claim to know. But to argue that he CAN'T or SHOULDN'T be able to TRY to sue. Stop with this.

And as far as the Jets, specifically, cutting or getting rid of Echols via trade when they learned about this - this is not a legal matter. If you find out this player had all these driving incidents in the past. You probably should have never drafted him. These are the major character concerns we always talk about. So don't give me this nonsense about 'the Jets are not culpable'. Maybe not legally, but they knew this was an issue and they remained tied to the player. That's all I really meant to say. And they did not cut him after THIS. After his previous character concerns nearly KILLED a person! Players have been cut or traded after much less. Just so the organization is no longer connected to their stench. So yeah, the Jets should have cut or traded him. 

I love how everyone is suddenly a law professor and has all intel on the matter and they are ready to skewer the victim in this case. Yet if this were to happen to them, they would probably be trying to sue everyone in sight to pay for lawyer fees, hospital bills and really just to get a semblance of their normal life back. Bottom line - if he wants to sue or TRY to sue the state of NJ, the Jets and Echols. He should go ahead and try. I won't feel a bit bad for the government or the corporation in this in case. 

And this is not going to be some sort of 'precedent' case. Because these kind of lawsuits happen all the time. If they are bunk- they will be dismissed. If not, they will be adjudicated. To suggest that he shouldn't sue because it would create a precedent that would change the way the Jets or the state of NJ operate is absurd. 

That's really all I have to say about this. 

[#27TheDominator]

On 5/5/2024 at 11:58 AM, Doggin94it said:

Yep. As a lawyer, this is one of those times where you need to tell the client "yeah, would be great if we could get that defendant on the hook, but there's no legal basis for it on the known facts. We can take discovery and amend them in if we find out something unexpected that would give us a claim against them, but I'm not naming them now."

I am pretty sure the whole point was for that attorney to get on TV and in the paper.  If he sues the Jets he will get multiple articles with his name in the Post and someone will remember it.  Even when it is for losing the summary judgment motion.

That video is pretty typical of someone that does not know how to handle power.  When the car starts to swerve he doesn't know how to react.  Dodge used to send people for free to one of the driving experience classes when they bought those things.  My Dad's only had 425 hp and they sent him.  This dipsh*t probably didn't take them up on it even though that Charger will be 707+