cle23

Insight #1: Aaron Donald is good.

If he goes from 6 to 17, the NFLPA will sue. Owners getting nothing and Watson gets 17? Also, I can't imagine the 1st case by the neutral judge getting almost tripled. I think it'll stay at 6 with a hefty fine attached.

To be fair, she is pretty involved year round. But I am sure that having her listed 1st was intentional.

Cleveland's 1st division game last year was week 8. Buffalo also has 1 divisional game in the 1st 6 weeks (technically 7) as their 8th game is vs the Jets.

I saw a few places put it out there as such: "Robinson says that another player was suspended 3 games for sexual misconduct of a non-violent nature and that came after he was warned by the league after an offense." Apparently that is the major "precedent" case they are using.

The independent judge is part of the process now as part of the CBA. It isn't going anywhere. Robinson was selected by the NFL and NFLPA.

Again, not saying the ruling is correct or anything, but Robinson is ruling on the 4 cases the NFL brought before her, not the 24 filed. She can't factor in something not brought up in the NFL's case.

The NFL only presented 4 cases. Not 24. People keep throwing out 24, but the NFL chose to focus on 4, so the other 20 don't have relevance in the NFL's case. I have no idea why they only focused on 4.

I can see a situation where the league leaves the suspension at 6, but imposes a larger fine. How that plays out, who knows.

Because the NFL is only looking at 4 cases. That was the case they brought on. And apparently from their investigating there was not much evidence. Robinson can't look at the 24 cases as that was not what was presented. Also, what evidence has been shown? I am not questioning that there is, but I honestly haven't seen anywhere that was presented other than the he said/she said. All I am saying is that if they can't show evidence, then it is hard to convict/punish someone for something that may or may not have happened. That is usually what makes these types of cases so hard. I am not saying it didn't happen as I have no idea, but without DNA evidence, witnesses, or something along those lines, it is extremely hard to prove. If there is no evidence of him "ejaculating on strangers" then it can't be used in consideration. If she has the clothing she was wearing with the DNA evidence, then by all means, use it. Also, the league never said he "served his time." Robinson isn't the league. And as far as I can tell, last year wasn't used for the ruling in any way. I have said this before several times. Watson sure seems to be a sexual deviant of some kind. How extreme he is, or how far he is willing to push the envelope, is unknown. If there is any evidence at all that he assaulted one of these women, he should be in jail and suspended. But so far, from what I have seen, there hasn't been any evidence presented. Doesn't mean there isn't, but in these types of cases, you can't just guess or assume. It's crazy tough on everyone to get this right.

Jerome Bettis.

Each situation depends. A lot of them, white/black/brown/whatever, yes it does. A lot it doesn't. Different situations. It was a barricaded door with quite a few protestors behind it. Behind the officer was Congress, in session. He gave a lawful command and she continued through a broken window, ignoring his drawn gun and orders to stop. There is no way to tell from his end if she was unarmed.

Yep, ignoring lawful commands from an officer while climbing through a broken window, into a restricted area with Congress meeting, all while having a gun pointed at you and ignoring the said commands, is about a simple as it gets. If you're dumb enough to do that, you get what you get.

Exactly what ChiGoose said. The Supreme Court's job isn't to make laws, but it is to make sure the rights of the people are not infringed upon, and that includes from states and the populace. Majority rule is not how a republic works. That's how a pure democracy works, and that is also why we are not a pure democracy.

But they don't though. They are making the restrictions tighter, not helping girls like this. NC is trying to make abortion a death penalty offense. That's my issue. In that case, shouldn't they have left abortion legal and worked towards it from there rather than what they've done?

If they let the abortion happen early, no issues. I do not agree with late term abortions, but I also don't agree with ruining a young girls life over something she had zero control over.

I agree the "father" should go to jail, but what is the plan for the raped other then? You going to raise the kid? You going to financially support her? So many people are "pro life" yet have no plan to help anyone once the life is here.

Ha. Yeah, my party? I didn't vote for Biden. Didn't vote for Hillary either. I did vote for Obama. I love how anyone who doesn't step in line with Trump false narrative is a marxist clown. The 2 party system is the issue. People jumping in lockstep for literally no reason other than party is the issue.

There may be. There has been zero evidence presented to say there was. It's definitely possible, but when people all over claim fraud, and then have absolutely nothing to back it up other than "there could be" then it's bogus. Present evidence and I'll jump right on board.

Also, George Tanios was allegedly caught on tape spraying the chemical spray into Sicknick's face. That is assault, and possibly with a deadly weapon depending what the chemicals were. I think it was bear spray but I honestly don't know.

So they medical profession who performed the autopsy isn't allowed to speculate as to what caused the death? It's not like he is blindly guessing. He is using past experience and years of training/expertise to form an educated opinion. His chance of being correct that the events led to his death are astronomically higher than your chances of winning the lottery. Also, no one was charged. So what are you arguing? For Roseanne Boyland, isn't it now your speculation as to what caused her death?

Natural causes as described is that he he was not killed directly by protestors. He died of naturally occurring things in his body, but those naturally occurring things can be a result of the stress and things of the day. Also, the medical examiner is the one who said the events of the day (the stress/anxiety/pressure) of the day likely contributed to his condition. So yes, I will take a licensed medical examiner's expert opinion on the matter over Julie Kelly's. Everyone and their brother knows what Kelly is implying when she says only Trump supporters died, and that it needs investigated. Don't play dumb in that situation. Saying only Trump supporters died during the protest is a statement of fact. It's adding that it "needs investigated" that causes the disingenuous nature of her tweet.

Enough with the "murder" crap too. If you are in your home and I am coming into the broken door/window like Babbitt was, you wouldn't shoot? Because I would.

That depends on what your opinion on Brian Sicknick is, but he is a law enforcement officer that died that day. He did not die from a direct attack, that is now proven, and was obviously incorrectly reported at the start. He was sprayed with chemicals, so he was assaulted. He died from 2 strokes, and the medical examiner said it was natural causes, but that can mean a lot of things: The Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Francisco J. Diaz, told the Washington Post that there was no evidence that Sicknick was injured or had an allergic reaction to chemical irritants. Due to privacy laws, he declined to say whether Sicknick had a preexisting medical condition. Diaz noted that Sicknick had engaged the rioters and said “all that transpired played a role in his condition.”[1] According to CNN, some neurologists did not think that the strokes were natural. Stress and traumatic events can lead to a stroke. Based on media accounts, a forensic pathologist thought that Sicknick's manner of death could have been classified better as homicide, accident, or undetermined.[c][32] If the Capitol J6 situation doesn't happen, Sicknick is likely still alive. As far as Julie Kelly, yes, I think she posts anything and everything to try to "stick it" to the other side, and discredit them, even if it means she is being willfully misleading or straight up lying.

Probably because most medical examiner's don't answer questions on such things to random political websites that call in, especially when the investigation was still ongoing. As for if they did it against he mother's wishes, how would they know her wishes without contacting the family?