Jump to content

mannc

Community Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    17,685

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by mannc

  1. mannc
    I don't doubt that there's a tape, but I would put absolutely zero faith in what Mr. Gilleon tells me is or is not on said tape.
  2. mannc
    I agree that teams have extremely broad leeway with regard to releasing players, but the players still have protections under the CBA in that regard.
  3. mannc
    Watson's case was investigated for many months by the league and the authorities and involved at least 24 different accusers. And Watson never went on the exempt list.
  4. mannc
    True that they get released all the time, but they are nonetheless protected by a collective bargaining agreement. They are not employees at will.
  5. mannc
    Exactly. Many here are ready to throw this guy overboard based entirely on what a plaintiff's attorney is saying happened. Not very smart, or fair.
  6. mannc
    How do you know he's on tape admitting that? Has the tape been released or are you relying on what a plaintiff's lawyer is telling you is on the tape? And your legal conclusion is simply wrong.
  7. mannc
    And again, almost 100% of the information that's publicly available at this point is coming from a plaintiff's lawyer.
  8. mannc
    No, they cannot. They are bound by the terms of the CBA. They can cut a player, but the player has the right to file a grievance if he believes the team's action violates the CBA.
  9. mannc
    You appear to be basing this extreme opinion--kick this guy off the Bills' roster before there's any sort of adjudication or, to our knowledge a thorough investigation--on what's been said by a plaintiff's lawyer and what's been alleged in the plaintiff's complaint. I don't think that's prudent. If I'm wrong about that, tell me what else you're basing your opinion on.
  10. mannc
    No, it's not and no you can't. Players are union members and their employment is subject to a collective bargaining agreement. They are not "at-will" employees.
  11. mannc
    Which is why in most states the age of consent is lower, and why the prosecution has to prove that there was no reasonable mistake about the girl’s true age, and why “statutory rape” between people of those ages is almost never prosecuted unless there are other aggravating circumstances.
  12. mannc
    Let me repeat myself: he doesn’t have to prove it.
  13. mannc
    It’s not a defense. No reasonable mistake as to age is an element of the crime that has to be proven by the state.
  14. mannc
    He doesn’t have to claim it; state has to prove no reasonable mistake.
  15. mannc
    He doesn’t have to testify. Prosecutors have to prove there was no reasonable mistake as to her age.
  16. mannc
    What she said matters
  17. mannc
    If Araiza had nothing to do with any gang rape, he’s very unlikely to be in serious criminal trouble for having sex with a 17-year old who was telling people she was 18, if that’s what happened, of course.
  18. mannc
    Yes, you’re right. But prosecutors would have to prove there was no reasonable mistake about her age.
  19. mannc
    I’ll stand by the US Constitution. It’s worked pretty well.
  20. mannc
    Wrong
  21. mannc
    To say the least
  22. mannc
    The constitution. States get to make their own laws regarding most criminal offenses. It’s a power the federal govt can’t take away, much as they try.
  23. mannc
    Ok, but if it falls under one of those exceptions, then it wasn’t illegally obtained.
  24. mannc
    That could take hours. What did I miss?
  25. mannc
    I assume you’re talking about a telephone call…some states require two party consent to record in-person conversations but not not phone calls…doesn’t make sense to me, but that’s the way it is.
×
×
  • Create New...