SoCal Deek
-
Posts
22,039 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by SoCal Deek
-
-
11 minutes ago, Augie said:
As for the bold, I think she is genuine in her beliefs (as is he, imo) and that she is pursuing the only remedy left available to her. Why do you care what she does with the money? That’s not the point here at all, imo. But it would be foolish to file a civil suit ahead of him signing his contract.
Thanks Augie
The reason I bring up the funds is because a civil trial is very different from a criminal one. In a criminal case, the convicted goes to prison. The victim gets essentially nothing other than the knowledge that the convicted is locked up and therefore can’t hurt anyone else for the term of their incarceration. However, in a civil case the remedy goes directly to the victim, not to society at large. It’s why, as I’m sure everyone can tell, I’m uncomfortable with these cases. I guess it’s why I’d be less uncomfortable if the plaintiff said they were going to donate the proceeds.
-
1
-
-
Aloha people
I’ve been trying to move this discussion away from the particulars of a he said, she said scenario because as I’ve posted a few times now, none of us knows what actually happened in this incident. The process will obviously play itself out.
My conceptual question is whether people think that filing a civil suit is the appropriate remedy (‘justice’ as Sierra called it) for what allegedly happened here. I’m actually on the fence. On the one hand, a monetary settlement doesn’t seem particularly appropriate when the victim hasn’t been monetarily damaged. On the other hand I can understand the frustration of the alleged victim if all other avenues of redress have been (at least in her mind) exhausted.
It’s on that point that the timing comes into play. Is it appropriate, as a victim, to simply wait in the weeds and pounce when the defendant comes into money? How does their financial status bring you justice? Are you promising to donate all proceeds to a women’s shelter? If the true intent is to get back at the defendant couldn’t you have done more actual damage to the defendant by bringing this into court BEFORE he even got to this point?
I could go on, but I’m curious what people think. Believe me…I realize it’s hard to have such philosophical discussions on a message board.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Sierra Foothills said:
I'm not sure who you're quoting but I can assure you it's not me.
But if you think differently, you can copy the URL for each post or even simpler, just tell me what page number this quote is from.
None of us know anything about this case. If you've been following this topic that's pretty clear.
It's my opinion that the filing of the civil suit is not a money grab but rather, an action by someone who is seeking justice.
Sierra
I’m trying to have a conceptual conversation here but you want to just keep stating things we all already know. I’m guessing I’m not going to make much progress and they’re closing the airplane doors so I have to sign off.
Mahalo!
-
10 minutes ago, Sierra Foothills said:
Actually, No.
A civil suit is not "at its essence" a money grab.
noun. plural money grabs. : the greedy pursuit of an opportunity for making money especially when done without regard for ethics, concerns, or consequences : cash grab. If he had sold out and made a money grab, much of what he stands for would have been diminished.
The essence of a money grab is that it is an unscrupulous act.
Really? Go figure!
The issue here is that the remedy being sought is money, when it’s unclear what monetary damages the plaintiff is seeking to recover. Do you know? -
8 hours ago, Billl said:
It’s about as credible as an accusation can be without any concrete evidence. She did everything that could possibly have been done in the immediate aftermath, and she has continued to speak out about it for years since then. Doesn’t mean it happened, but this doesn’t sound like a money grab to me.
A civil suit is at its very essence, a money grab. That doesn’t mean the incident didn’t occur but the remedy being sought is in fact, money.
-
1
-
-
$2,000 spread over ten years works out to $20.00 per game, and less if it gives you access to other events. In ten years that’ll be chump change. Seems like a good price to guarantee a sideline spot under the roof.
-
1
-
-
I don’t think anyone can judge the situation between the girl and Mad Max. But I do have wonder why the Bills took the plunge seeing as how they knew all about it. It’s not like he’s a sixth round punter. If this goes bad, it’s a helluva public relations nightmare.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, cba fan said:
hmmm. What is lost in all of this is why would owners care if large, guaranteed contracts are given out? They have a salary cap. If they fail like many do, it only hurts teams who signed them like the dumb Browns. Teams are free to do as they wish.
With salary cap. It is in non-winning teams best interest that winning teams sign the big ticket "make a difference" players to huge, guaranteed contracts so it hampers their ability to put together a better roster.(and actually if they sign a bad player to a big guaranteed deal that is even better lol) Thereby giving the lesser teams a better chance to compete to acquire good players. (as a Bills fan i was rooting for Chiefs, Fish, Ravens, etc etc, to all sign their QB's to ridiculous large deals lol)
I get in the short term when one of your players deserves the big raise big guaranteed deal, your team will now be in the same boat and have tough negotiations. But that's life. Then the lesser teams get the good players and the window for teams to be super bowl contenders will be shifted to other teams until your turn comes around again. Really how this should work so the same teams don't always win.
edit: and i forgot that by giving out these huge, guaranteed deals it lowers the money available for veterans on that roster as the big, guaranteed contract takes up too much cap space. Teams then need to fill out roster with draftees, UDFA's, younger cheaper players thereby lowering veteran players income. NFL addressed this somewhat by exempting some of certain veterans' salaries against the cap.
I’m guessing that the employer (owner) wants as much flexibility as possible when it comes to employee compensation. They probably don’t want guaranteed contracts becoming all the rage. Just my guess.
-
1
-
-
-
19 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:
The NFL also invited him to the draft now that I think about it. I get what you're saying though. I don't know the extent of the Bills investigation. Were they even allowed to talk to the girl that's currently filing the suit?
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not blaming the Bills here. I suspect they definitely looked into it. You can read into that what you will. For me, it means they weren’t all that concerned.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Just now, Doc Brown said:
The NFL also invited him to the combine with this incident on file already so their hands aren't clean of this either.
Understood but….That’s not what I asked. The NFL’s public relations exposure here doesn’t come anywhere close to the Bills exposure. Being invited to the combine doesn’t mean you’re getting drafted and certainly not in the 1st Round.
-
20 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:
Dude. Beane talked about the incident at the press conference right after they drafted him. I thought at that point everyone knew about the incident. Even the casual fan. LOL. The whole league knew about it.
So is it safe to say that the Bills didn’t think there was much, if anything, to be concerned about? I mean, given the Punt God experience, I find it hard to imagine OBD can use the ‘go figure’ defense.
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, Wallymo said:
There are different standards of proof in a criminal versus civil proceeding. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a higher standard than more than likely. If assault can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, should criminal charges not be sought at all (and therefore not fail) and only a civil action brought? Particularly in a "he said / she said" matter? I'm not trying to be critical, I just don't follow the logic.
The primary difference between a criminal versus civil proceeding is NOT the level of proof required. The difference is the nature of the remedy sought. A criminal case results in prison time. It is therefore in many ways considered a crime against society at large…meaning that if found guilty you are removed from society. A civil case results in monetary payment to the plaintiff. It’s therefore not considered a crime against society but solely against the plaintiff. If I’m not mistaken, a criminal case is brought by the State with a state/federal prosecutor representing society. A civil case is brought by a private plaintiff with an attorney representing only the accuser.
-
58 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:
It’s interesting you share that photo. I can see a monetary civil judgement if once again you were financially damaged by the defendant. For example, if you killed the family breadwinner but were found innocent of criminal charges, then that loss of income would be cause for a civil remedy. That doesn’t seem to be the case here, or in OJ’s case either for that matter.
-
As has been said many times, ‘anyone can sue you for anything’ but these cases always bother me. If you were financially damaged by someone then I can see the purpose and remedy provided by a civil suit. But, suing someone because you failed in an attempt at criminal charges has never seemed appropriate to me. Nor in my opinion, is it the intent of the law.
-
3
-
1
-
-
As others have said, the timing of this is obvious. But what most are missing is that the Plaintiffs attorney probably convinced his client to bring charges right now, before McDs defensive strategy goes full Elam on the young man. 😉
-
Nice work on this . I immediately went to the AFC East predictions but living in Southern California couldn’t help take a peek at the LA Rams. I remember a year ago when people said the Rams were going to be a total disaster having put all the chips in to win a Super Bowl at SoFi Stadium a year or two previously ….and yet somehow (if Corta is right) they’re right back as top contenders to do it….again. Is this observation Bills related? Yes. Can it please be our year in 2025? Please! It just shouldn’t be this darn hard…dammit!
Go Bills-
1
-
-
In all the many years I spent pushing a lawnmower around my parents WNY lawn never once did I think to myself that it was really hard to grow grass in Buffalo. 😂
-
4
-
-
26 minutes ago, WNYFAN1 said:
Super helpful response, thank you!
This is a message board devoted to chatting about a football team. You don’t actually think that anything posted on here is intended to change anything, do you? Just keep smiling. It’ll all be okay. 😉
-
4 hours ago, Figster said:
Nieve to think betting is beyond corruption IMO.
What are the odds that nieve is incorrectly spelled?
-
1
-
6
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, behind a post WMS69 said:
Paint and punch-list consisting of installing or replacing non working fixtures, such as lighting and appliances are typically the last things done on a large construction project. My guess is that some of the high tech systems may have programming kinks to work out also. If memory is correct (which is not all the time these days) I seem to recall the scoreboard having issues on opening night at Rich Stadium.
That original scoreboard was cutting edge at the time. Looking back it was really just a bunch of light bulbs, but nobody had ever thought you could watch replays while sitting in the stadium. The picture quality was horrible but if you squinted you could almost tell what was on the ‘screen’. 😂
-
4 hours ago, Not at the table Karlos said:
Im a decent amount smaller than Dion (6’1” 210) When we sat in the seats at the stadium experience my shoulder lined up with my friends chest. His 14 year old son had to lean to the side so his dad wasn’t on top of him.
For having less seats they sure didn’t give you anymore room. The sales rep looked worried and kinda rushed us through that part.
I’ve mentioned this quite a few times. Seat width and row spacing are probably the two biggest impacts on game day comfort but are often overlooked in the design process. Row spacing is determined very early on and is extremely hard to change later on. Seat width comes from the seating manufacturer and can change up until the last minute …but it has huge impact on seating capacity.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Mango said:
To the bolded. LOL. No they don't. There is no legal requirement to name a President nor a secretary. Not in NYS, not in FL, and not by the NFL. You are just throwing short at the wall and hoping something sticks.
In my time working for and with multi-billion dollar brands there are a lot less brands that take a (relegated to) marketing executive and have them not only sit in meetings for hirings well outside of their field of expertise or department, but give their voice significant weight. But sure, maybe the bazillion start ups that try and stupidly emulate google far outweigh that.
We have not yet seen Pegula organize people in a way that breeds success. We have seen McBeane do it, and that includes also controlling Pegula. But when given (taking?) full control Ter-Bear has yet to show the ability to do that at scale.
Even if your point were true (which again, it is not. It is blatantly false), there is zero reason why a figure head President relgated to marketing should be present in the hiring of football ops unless 1. they aren't just a figure head and/or 2. their opinion carried significant weight however unqualified/undeserving to give it.
It may be different in different States because it is the case in California, where I served as the President of a large corporation for years. We were required to designate Officers of the Corporation every year. It was a standing action item on our Board Agenda. Regardless, even if it isn't the case in every State, then the term President has even less standing or authority. It is essentially just something somebody puts on their business card. And as I've said, I have absolutely no opinion on the Pegula's one way or the other. You clearly do.
-
42 minutes ago, stuvian said:
Supply and demand being what it is, an owner will break ranks again and offer a QB a guaranteed contract. I just wonder about team unity when the QB gets the guarantee and no one else. I hope DeShaun Watson sends his agent a thank you card. That's up there with the Herschel Walker trade and Ditka's mortgage on Ricky Williams.
I’ve often wondered about that. I’ve never played a professional sport and certainly not at the NFL level. What’s it feel like for the 3rd string QB to sit right next to Josh in the locker room knowing that he makes more for throwing a single pass than you’ll make all season?
-
1
-
Maxwell Hairston named in civil lawsuit for sexual assault
in The Stadium Wall
Posted · Edited by SoCal Deek
Sierra,
This is why we’re having an adult discussion about a complicated issue. If you actually read my post you’ll see I’ve been careful not to judge the validity of her claim. I’m simply asking whether this is the appropriate remedy for the damage she claims that she suffered.
Make sense?
And to add to your question about if it was my daughter, I’ve actually thought about that exact question. The answer I’ve come to is that I don’t think I could EVER sit in the new car she bought with the proceeds….but that’s just me.