OT: Killian unloads on the NFL

OT: Killian unloads on the NFL - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: OT: Killian unloads on the NFL (/thread-23074.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

RE: OT: Killian unloads on the NFL - burger - 03-23-2022

(03-23-2022, 12:38 PM)teejers1 Wrote:
(03-23-2022, 11:48 AM)burger Wrote:
(03-23-2022, 11:06 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:
(03-22-2022, 04:39 PM)teejers1 Wrote:
(03-22-2022, 02:42 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: Thanks for the laugh. . . .

1. Did you read the SI article (relaying experience of one woman who is not a plaintiff)?

2. Do you believe all 22 women are just making up the accusations of unwanted sexual-related activities by Watson? Even half of them?

I could believe one or two or even 5 doing that. But 22? C'mon, man . . .

Wasn't referring to the article at all. The list is long and distinguished of those who've made stuff up and perjured themselves with false accusations. See Jussie Smollett, Shari Papini, and most of the bureaucrats in DC.

It's no wonder women won't report sexual assaults and, when reported, prosecutors won't prosecute. They end up with someone like cardcrimson on the jury. It only takes one to let a rapist walk free.

C'mon, man. That's out of line.

No. Casting aspersions on all those women is out of line. I've known a couple of women who were sexually assaulted and didn't report it because they expected cops and prosecutors to doubt their claims. That is a MUCH larger problem than any false accusations.

There are a lot of really disgusting comments in this thread. I think less of some of you now. It's disheartening to see this sort of thing from Stanford alums.

RE: OT: Killian unloads on the NFL - Phogge - 03-23-2022

Just learned about a case of a distinguished and beloved teacher out here on the Coast. A number of girls attached to stories of abuse more than 30 years ago. Nobody came forward back then. Some pain has lasted throughout adulthood. 31 names of priests tied to scandals at the HS I attended. Students too embarrassed to speak. Or silenced by adults. It's real and it's about power and coverup.

Sad that it is a lot of ancient history and a mental pain to come forward. But it still goes on today. Shame on the Browns.

RE: OT: Killian unloads on the NFL - cardcrimson - 03-23-2022

(03-23-2022, 01:19 PM)burger Wrote:
(03-23-2022, 12:38 PM)teejers1 Wrote:
(03-23-2022, 11:48 AM)burger Wrote:
(03-23-2022, 11:06 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:
(03-22-2022, 04:39 PM)teejers1 Wrote: 1. Did you read the SI article (relaying experience of one woman who is not a plaintiff)?

2. Do you believe all 22 women are just making up the accusations of unwanted sexual-related activities by Watson? Even half of them?

I could believe one or two or even 5 doing that. But 22? C'mon, man . . .

Wasn't referring to the article at all. The list is long and distinguished of those who've made stuff up and perjured themselves with false accusations. See Jussie Smollett, Shari Papini, and most of the bureaucrats in DC.

It's no wonder women won't report sexual assaults and, when reported, prosecutors won't prosecute. They end up with someone like cardcrimson on the jury. It only takes one to let a rapist walk free.

C'mon, man. That's out of line.

No. Casting aspersions on all those women is out of line. I've known a couple of women who were sexually assaulted and didn't report it because they expected cops and prosecutors to doubt their claims. That is a MUCH larger problem than any false accusations.

There are a lot of really disgusting comments in this thread. I think less of some of you now. It's disheartening to see this sort of thing from Stanford alums.

What are you talking about? I made no mention of the women at all, I've not read the story, and I said that. Period.

I merely had a chuckle at the comment that people don't make stuff up. The news is filled with stories of people making shit up. Heard of Jussie Smollett? How about Shari Papini? Not to mention any of the BS over the last several decades in DC.

That said, to jump to the conclusion that I'd discount or ignore whatever the women said is utter BS and entirely unfair and out of line. Talk about casting aspersions. Good grief. FWIW, I have a 15 year old daughter, and take sexual assault, and any sexual misconduct extremely seriously.

RE: OT: Killian unloads on the NFL - lex24 - 03-23-2022

(03-23-2022, 01:19 PM)burger Wrote:
(03-23-2022, 12:38 PM)teejers1 Wrote:
(03-23-2022, 11:48 AM)burger Wrote:
(03-23-2022, 11:06 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:
(03-22-2022, 04:39 PM)teejers1 Wrote: 1. Did you read the SI article (relaying experience of one woman who is not a plaintiff)?

2. Do you believe all 22 women are just making up the accusations of unwanted sexual-related activities by Watson? Even half of them?

I could believe one or two or even 5 doing that. But 22? C'mon, man . . .

Wasn't referring to the article at all. The list is long and distinguished of those who've made stuff up and perjured themselves with false accusations. See Jussie Smollett, Shari Papini, and most of the bureaucrats in DC.

It's no wonder women won't report sexual assaults and, when reported, prosecutors won't prosecute. They end up with someone like cardcrimson on the jury. It only takes one to let a rapist walk free.

C'mon, man. That's out of line.

No. Casting aspersions on all those women is out of line. I've known a couple of women who were sexually assaulted and didn't report it because they expected cops and prosecutors to doubt their claims. That is a MUCH larger problem than any false accusations.

There are a lot of really disgusting comments in this thread. I think less of some of you now. It's disheartening to see this sort of thing from Stanford alums.

Not a Stanford alum. My only comment was to correct a statement that the standard for a Grand Jury indictment is not “beyond a reasonable doubt” it is “probable cause.”

I also don’t see the “disgusting” comments you suggest. (Care to be specific?) But I do see you doing what is so common these days - taking someones statement and twisting it into the worst possible interpretation. It is one reason that it’s become darn near impossible to discuss issues.

(03-22-2022, 04:31 PM)Goose Wrote:
(03-22-2022, 02:33 PM)lex24 Wrote: It’s not hard to get a Grand Jury to indite. As once was said “you can indite a ham sandwich.” Further, the standard to indite at the Federal level and, In most jurisdictions (including Texas) is “probable cause” not “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
It is indeed often easy to indite somebody. However, there is no point in doing so if you can't possibly convict them. Prosecutors know this, and sometimes so do Grand Juries. As others point out, Watson may not be criminally responsible and still be liable for damage in civil court. He may even not have civil liability and still be morally reprehensible. If being reprehensible is a disqualifying attribute, probably 20% of the NFL is in that category IMHO.

I neither said nor suggested that the decision to not indite exonerates Watson civilly or for that matter morally. I did correct your legal analysis. The standard is “ probable cause” which is a significantly easier standard to meet than “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

RE: OT: Killian unloads on the NFL - teejers1 - 03-23-2022

(03-23-2022, 01:19 PM)burger Wrote:
(03-23-2022, 12:38 PM)teejers1 Wrote:
(03-23-2022, 11:48 AM)burger Wrote:
(03-23-2022, 11:06 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:
(03-22-2022, 04:39 PM)teejers1 Wrote: 1. Did you read the SI article (relaying experience of one woman who is not a plaintiff)?

2. Do you believe all 22 women are just making up the accusations of unwanted sexual-related activities by Watson? Even half of them?

I could believe one or two or even 5 doing that. But 22? C'mon, man . . .

Wasn't referring to the article at all. The list is long and distinguished of those who've made stuff up and perjured themselves with false accusations. See Jussie Smollett, Shari Papini, and most of the bureaucrats in DC.

It's no wonder women won't report sexual assaults and, when reported, prosecutors won't prosecute. They end up with someone like cardcrimson on the jury. It only takes one to let a rapist walk free.

C'mon, man. That's out of line.

No. Casting aspersions on all those women is out of line. I've known a couple of women who were sexually assaulted and didn't report it because they expected cops and prosecutors to doubt their claims. That is a MUCH larger problem than any false accusations.

There are a lot of really disgusting comments in this thread. I think less of some of you now. It's disheartening to see this sort of thing from Stanford alums.

Well, there's a lot of that going on in these parts.

RE: OT: Killian unloads on the NFL - Goose - 03-23-2022

(03-23-2022, 02:30 PM)lex24 Wrote: I neither said nor suggested that the decision to not indite exonerates Watson civilly or for that matter morally. I did correct your legal analysis. The standard is “ probable cause” which is a significantly easier standard to meet than “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

I think we are talking past each other here. The point I was attempting to make was that if the prosecutors don't think they can prove the case "beyond a reasonable doubt", they aren't going to push hard for an indictment, even if they do have "probable cause". In many cases, getting an indictment is an significant aid to the investigation that can lead to more evidence. However, if the prosecutors are pretty sure their witnesses aren't going to be convincing to a jury, they may elect not to proceed. Obviously that only makes sense if there is little hope of further investigation or the indictment leading to more or better evidence.

RE: OT: Killian unloads on the NFL - lex24 - 03-23-2022

(03-23-2022, 05:31 PM)Goose Wrote:
(03-23-2022, 02:30 PM)lex24 Wrote: I neither said nor suggested that the decision to not indite exonerates Watson civilly or for that matter morally. I did correct your legal analysis. The standard is “ probable cause” which is a significantly easier standard to meet than “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
I think we are talking past each other here. The point I was attempting to make was that if the prosecutors don't think they can prove the case "beyond a reasonable doubt", they aren't going to push hard for an indictment, even if they do have "probable cause". In many cases, getting an indictment is an significant aid to the investigation that can lead to more evidence. However, if the prosecutors are pretty sure their witnesses aren't going to be convincing to a jury, they may elect not to proceed. Obviously that only makes sense if there is little hope of further investigation or the indictment leading to more or better evidence.

Yes, but. In this situation the DA brought 9 charges to the Grand Jury. So, the prosecutor did proceed. The Grand Jury didn’t issue the bills. And they aren’t using a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. They are using a “probable cause” standard. Which is not particularly difficult to meet.

Again, it doesn’t exonerate Watson civilly or morally.

RE: OT: Killian unloads on the NFL - Goose - 03-23-2022

(03-23-2022, 05:39 PM)lex24 Wrote: Yes, but. In this situation the DA brought 9 bills to the Grand Jury. So, the prosecutor did proceed. The Grand Jury didn’t issue the bills. And they aren’t using a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. They are using a “probable cause” standard. Which is not particularly difficult to meet.

Yes, the bills were brought, but as others have pointed out here in the "You can indite a ham sandwich" argument, the tenor of the prosecutors can be very important. Generally (though not always) the prosecutors get what they want. If they don't think they have a good case, the Grand Jury can get that message. That is why I said "and sometimes so do Grand Juries". The prosecutors may have felt pressure to bring the bills, but made it clear by what they presented that it wasn't a case that they felt was worthy of a trial (that they felt they would lose).

RE: OT: Killian unloads on the NFL - DC 86 - 03-23-2022

At the risk of getting involved in this contentious thread:

1. I interpreted Burger's comments as being directed at Crimson, and I thought they were patently unfair.

2. I believe the women in these cases (or at least the vast majority of them) and I bet there are other women who haven't even come forward.

3. What does being a Stanford alum have to do with anything? There's no evidence of moral superiority by alumni I don't think.

4. It's factually incorrect to state that there are "loads of cases" where grand juries fail to indict obviously guilty defendants. At the state level the rate of indictment is estimated to be 95%+ and at the federal level it's even higher. There was a study done about a decade ago by the Bureau of Justice Statistics that concluded that out of 160,000 cases pursued by federal prosecutors, only eleven (11) didn't make it to trial because a grand jury didn't return an indictment. The fact that this grand jury issued a No Bill in all nine cases presented is unusual and can't be casually dismissed. Whether prosecutors framed the case in a certain manner because they weren't confident of ultimately meeting the standard of guilt at trial or they couldn't meet the lower standard for indictment at the grand jury level equals the same result. Watson surely seems guilty on a moral (and possibly civil) level but at the criminal level for him to have prevailed in front of the grand jury is not meaningless.

RE: OT: Killian unloads on the NFL - Phogge - 03-23-2022

Great post DC.

RE: OT: Killian unloads on the NFL - Goose - 03-23-2022

(03-23-2022, 06:37 PM)DC 86 Wrote: Whether prosecutors framed the case in a certain manner because they weren't confident of ultimately meeting the standard of guilt at trial or they couldn't meet the lower standard for indictment at the grand jury level equals the same result. Watson surely seems guilty on a moral (and possibly civil) level but at the criminal level for him to have prevailed in front of the grand jury is not meaningless.

With this I totally agree.

RE: OT: Killian unloads on the NFL - BostonCard - 03-23-2022

(03-23-2022, 11:48 AM)burger Wrote: They end up with someone like cardcrimson on the jury.

Please let’s not make our arguments personal.

BC

RE: OT: Killian unloads on the NFL - teejers1 - 03-23-2022

(03-23-2022, 07:39 PM)Phogge Wrote: Great post DC.

What Phogge said.

RE: OT: Killian unloads on the NFL - 82lsju - 03-24-2022

Quote:For the second time in two weeks, a grand jury in Texas is going to hear evidence in a case involving Deshaun Watson to determine if the Browns quarterback should be indicted for any crimes relating to the 22 sexual misconduct lawsuits he's facing.

The first grand jury convened in Harris County on March 11 and didn't return an indictment. According to Fox 8 in Houston, the second grand jury meeting will be taking place in a different Texas county. The New York Times has reported that the exact location is Brazoria County, which is just south of Houston.
Watson's attorney, Rusty Hardin, has confirmed that his camp is aware of the latest development in the case. Watson is facing 22 different civil lawsuits that all allege sexual misconduct, and according to Hardin, the second grand jury will be hearing evidence based on one of those 22 cases.

"It's not a new complaint," Hardin told Fox 8.

According to Hardin, the prosecution in Brazoria County wanted to let the grand jury deliberations in Harris County finish before they moved forward with their own grand jury. The second grand jury is expected to render a decision either Thursday or Friday, according to Tony Buzbee, who represents the complainant.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/deshaun-watson-legal-trouble-second-grand-jury-to-consider-indictment-against-browns-star-quarterback/

RE: OT: Killian unloads on the NFL - OutsiderFan - 03-24-2022

Can the NFL teams who pursued Watson possibly look worse? How in the hell can teams who were waiting until the Houston Grand Jury outcome before trading for Watson, have actually done so, when there is yet another Grand Jury proceeding in a different jurisdiction this week?!?!!?

I mean if you were waiting to see if he was innocent before trading for him, you were basically saying we want to make sure he's not been charged with crimes when we get him. Makes no sense and demonstrates an impotent effort to actually do your due diligence on the situation and protect your franchise. What would be more Browns than trading the store and blowing up their salary structure with fully guaranteed money for a player who was indicted and went to prison, when you just had to wait another week to make sure he really was in the clear.

It is impossible for me to believe the Browns weren't aware of - or had no way to know of - this additional Grand Jury would be ruling on Watson's case.

Maybe Watson's contract includes an out that he must forfeit the deal if indicted, but I don't see how he would sign such a deal given the number of pursuers he had, the fact he got $230M guaranteed at signing, and the Browns didn't wait until after the additional Grand Jury before signing him.

RE: OT: Killian unloads on the NFL - M T - 03-24-2022

The linked-to article indicated 9 no-bills in Harris County (primarily Houston). There was mention of only one complainant for an alleged crime in Brazoria County. I wonder where the other 12 complaints are.

RE: OT: Killian unloads on the NFL - teejers1 - 03-24-2022

(03-24-2022, 10:32 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Can the NFL teams who pursued Watson possibly look worse? How in the hell can teams who were waiting until the Houston Grand Jury outcome before trading for Watson, have actually done so, when there is yet another Grand Jury proceeding in a different jurisdiction this week?!?!!?

I mean if you were waiting to see if he was innocent before trading for him, you were basically saying we want to make sure he's not been charged with crimes when we get him. Makes no sense and demonstrates an impotent effort to actually do your due diligence on the situation and protect your franchise. What would be more Browns than trading the store and blowing up their salary structure with fully guaranteed money for a player who was indicted and went to prison, when you just had to wait another week to make sure he really was in the clear.

It is impossible for me to believe the Browns weren't aware of - or had no way to know of - this additional Grand Jury would be ruling on Watson's case.

Maybe Watson's contract includes an out that he must forfeit the deal if indicted, but I don't see how he would sign such a deal given the number of pursuers he had, the fact he got $230M guaranteed at signing, and the Browns didn't wait until after the additional Grand Jury before signing him.

You left out this consideration: which Texas grand jury is more likely to return an indictment against Watson - (a) one empaneled while Watson is on the Houston roster, or (b) one empaneled while Watson is on the Cleveland roster?

[And I'm only half-kidding . . . I think!].

RE: OT: Killian unloads on the NFL - cardcrimson - 03-24-2022

(03-24-2022, 10:43 AM)teejers1 Wrote:
(03-24-2022, 10:32 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Can the NFL teams who pursued Watson possibly look worse? How in the hell can teams who were waiting until the Houston Grand Jury outcome before trading for Watson, have actually done so, when there is yet another Grand Jury proceeding in a different jurisdiction this week?!?!!?

I mean if you were waiting to see if he was innocent before trading for him, you were basically saying we want to make sure he's not been charged with crimes when we get him. Makes no sense and demonstrates an impotent effort to actually do your due diligence on the situation and protect your franchise. What would be more Browns than trading the store and blowing up their salary structure with fully guaranteed money for a player who was indicted and went to prison, when you just had to wait another week to make sure he really was in the clear.

It is impossible for me to believe the Browns weren't aware of - or had no way to know of - this additional Grand Jury would be ruling on Watson's case.

Maybe Watson's contract includes an out that he must forfeit the deal if indicted, but I don't see how he would sign such a deal given the number of pursuers he had, the fact he got $230M guaranteed at signing, and the Browns didn't wait until after the additional Grand Jury before signing him.

You left out this consideration: which Texas grand jury is more likely to return an indictment against Watson - (a) one empaneled while Watson is on the Houston roster, or (b) one empaneled while Watson is on the Cleveland roster?

[And I'm only half-kidding . . . I think!].

I was about to make a joke that, by Sunday, Garoppolo will be in a Browns uniform, but was too worried that I'd be accused of casting aspersions again.

RE: OT: Killian unloads on the NFL - Goose - 03-24-2022

(03-24-2022, 10:32 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Can the NFL teams who pursued Watson possibly look worse? How in the hell can teams who were waiting until the Houston Grand Jury outcome before trading for Watson, have actually done so, when there is yet another Grand Jury proceeding in a different jurisdiction this week?!?!!?

I mean if you were waiting to see if he was innocent before trading for him, you were basically saying we want to make sure he's not been charged with crimes when we get him. Makes no sense and demonstrates an impotent effort to actually do your due diligence on the situation and protect your franchise. What would be more Browns than trading the store and blowing up their salary structure with fully guaranteed money for a player who was indicted and went to prison, when you just had to wait another week to make sure he really was in the clear.

It is impossible for me to believe the Browns weren't aware of - or had no way to know of - this additional Grand Jury would be ruling on Watson's case.

Maybe Watson's contract includes an out that he must forfeit the deal if indicted, but I don't see how he would sign such a deal given the number of pursuers he had, the fact he got $230M guaranteed at signing, and the Browns didn't wait until after the additional Grand Jury before signing him.

Any team trading for Watson has to realize that just because a particular Grand Jury does not return an indictment does not mean that all other Grand Juries will not. Even in the same jurisdiction, new facts or a new approach by prosecutors may result in an indictment. Until the statue of limitations expires, it isn't over. It may get less probable over time, but it doesn't go away.

RE: OT: Killian unloads on the NFL - BobK - 03-24-2022

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/33585725/second-grand-jury-mulls-another-charge-cleveland-browns-qb-deshaun-watson

Here’s another Grand Jury