Saints: Criminal Conspiracy?

[Mr. WEO]

I figured that after you read "interstate commerce," you would have stopped reading. Basically it's a stretch to claim there was a "conspiracy," and no one will justify wasting taxpayer dollars pursuing this, when the NFL is meting-out its own punishment, for a game where the purpose is to hit the other person hard.

The "interstate commerce" angle would make it a federal case. The author threw it in for the sake of argument--which is what we are discussing here, doc. But any state prosecutor could bring a case without having to invoke interstate commerce.

 

And you still are struggling to understand the legal concept of conspiracy, I see.

[Doc]

The "interstate commerce" angle would make it a federal case. The author threw it in for the sake of argument--which is what we are discussing here, doc. But any state prosecutor could bring a case without having to invoke interstate commerce.

 

And you still are struggling to understand the legal concept of conspiracy, I see.

Again, as I said doc, this is different than your usual "criminal conspiracy." And it doesn't matter whether it's a "legal" conspiracy or just a plain old wacky/paranoid conspiracy. This is as flimsy as any one you've laughed at me for advancing. And I laughed when I read "interstate commerce," envisioning this case ultimately ending up before the SCOTUS. It's a non-starter.

[Mr. WEO]

Again, as I said doc, this is different than your usual "criminal conspiracy." And it doesn't matter whether it's a "legal" conspiracy or just a plain old wacky/paranoid conspiracy. This is as flimsy as any one you've laughed at me for advancing. And I laughed when I read "interstate commerce," envisioning this case ultimately ending up before the SCOTUS. It's a non-starter.

What is the "usual criminal conspiracy" and how is this different?

[Doc]

The "usual criminal conspiracy" is racketeering. The NFL is one corporation, not multiple corporations, and the Saints are an entity within the corporation. Outside of the bad pub, no real "harm" came from it, considering the name of the game is to hit people hard, with injuries occurring both as a result of contact and non-contact.

[mrags]

They don't do it by paying their players specifically for inflicting game or season ending injuries on the opponent. To put it mildly, there's a difference--it's what we're talking about, actually.

 

 

 

As RealityCheck points out, motive has nothing to do with the charge of conspiracy.

 

 

An unconvincing argument doc. You can do better.

 

 

 

Great post. Conspiracy can involve as few as 2 people.

 

 

 

It doesn't matter whether they were illegal hits or fined hits (they were of both varieties in the Minnesota game, actually). Guys get injured on "clean hits" all the time. In fact, it's very safe to assume nearly all significant injuries are the result of clean hits. But now we have the Saints coaching staff odering specific hits to produce specific injuries on specific players. Also, whether fines were or niot going to be paid by the coaches is irrelevant--the players were being payed and they knew the pay would cover the fine if they were flagged/fined.

 

All of this boils dons to a very simple and ovious question that I haven't seen answerd yet:

 

If players are always trying to play hard and always encouraged to make big plays with big hits, why would any coaching staff on any team ever have to offer them more money to do it?

 

The obvious answer is that the players and the coaches know what they are doing involves significant risk to the player who isbeing asked to make the "take out hit" (penalty/fine/suspension). The bounty rewards the player for that risk. Therefore, everyone knows what they are doing is wrong.

Very legal sounding argument Weo. Very solid defense against the Saints Coaches and players.

 

Just curious, what do you do for a living?

[Mr. WEO]

The "usual criminal conspiracy" is racketeering. The NFL is one corporation, not multiple corporations, and the Saints are an entity within the corporation. Outside of the bad pub, no real "harm" came from it, considering the name of the game is to hit people hard, with injuries occurring both as a result of contact and non-contact.

Criminal conspiracy is 2 or more people agreeing to participate or commit an unlawful or criminal act, doc. Doesn't have to include racketeering (which is the commision or crimes to further illegal business activities).

 

If you offer to pay a guy to kill your wife, you are guilty of criminal conspiracy (the refs don't need to be involved!).

 

To be found guilty of conspiracy, there doesn't have to be harm--in fact the act doesn't even have to be carried out. Anyway, this has nothing to do with the "NFL". My curiosity was whether the caoches and players would be in jeopardy of criminal charges for conspiracy. The article brings up the same question wih regard to racketeering. I'm talking about something simpler.

 

Very legal sounding argument Weo. Very solid defense against the Saints Coaches and players.

 

Just curious, what do you do for a living?

Thanks mrags (how about "Mr. AGS"?--give it a try!). I just thought it was an interesting angle on this story. Good discussion so far.

 

I'm a doc, like doc--but different (surgeon). But I minored in bul+sh+t in college.

[mrags]

Criminal conspiracy is 2 or more people agreeing to participate or commit an unlawful or criminal act, doc. Doesn't have to include racketeering (which is the commision or crimes to further illegal business activities).

 

If you offer to pay a guy to kill your wife, you are guilty of criminal conspiracy (the refs don't need to be involved!).

 

To be found guilty of conspiracy, there doesn't have to be harm--in fact the act doesn't even have to be carried out. Anyway, this has nothing to do with the "NFL". My curiosity was whether the caoches and players would be in jeopardy of criminal charges for conspiracy. The article brings up the same question wih regard to racketeering. I'm talking about something simpler.

 

 

Thanks mrags (how about "Mr. AGS"?--give it a try!). I just thought it was an interesting angle on this story. Good discussion so far.

 

I'm a doc, like doc--but different (surgeon). But I minored in bul+sh+t in college.

Lol. Nice. Mrags is actually a nickname I used to have by one of my coworkers. It's actually m for mike and part of my last name. Can't tell u howany people say Mr. Ags. Lol

[JohnC]

The "usual criminal conspiracy" is racketeering. The NFL is one corporation, not multiple corporations, and the Saints are an entity within the corporation. Outside of the bad pub, no real "harm" came from it, considering the name of the game is to hit people hard, with injuries occurring both as a result of contact and non-contact.

 

You don't think that the growing number of civil cases of the retired players against the league won't be affected by the bounty and head hunting accusations? One of the primary reasons that Roger Goodell was so aggressive in responding to the New Orleans situation was that he was very aware how claims of intentionally hurting players will damage his position in court against the former players who are now physically impaired.

[Doc]

Criminal conspiracy is 2 or more people agreeing to participate or commit an unlawful or criminal act, doc. Doesn't have to include racketeering (which is the commision or crimes to further illegal business activities).

 

If you offer to pay a guy to kill your wife, you are guilty of criminal conspiracy (the refs don't need to be involved!).

 

To be found guilty of conspiracy, there doesn't have to be harm--in fact the act doesn't even have to be carried out. Anyway, this has nothing to do with the "NFL". My curiosity was whether the caoches and players would be in jeopardy of criminal charges for conspiracy. The article brings up the same question wih regard to racketeering. I'm talking about something simpler.

Well that's why I said this is different. Football is a violent game where players are paid to tackle other players. Players try to tackle other players hard. Sometimes players get hurt. Beyond that, the monetary incentives are so low with these "bounties" that they're wouldn't be considered financial inducements to injure. So you'd have to see what harm came to players as a result and then determine if that constitutes a "conspiracy" or not. And even the guy who wrote the article said it was a long shot.

 

You don't think that the growing number of civil cases of the retired players against the league won't be affected by the bounty and head hunting accusations? One of the primary reasons that Roger Goodell was so aggressive in responding to the New Orleans situation was that he was very aware how claims of intentionally hurting players will damage his position in court against the former players who are now physically impaired.

Actually I think this helps the league. Here you have players who were being paid pittances compared to their salaries to potentially injure fellow players and they were okay with it. And players in past eras relished injuring each other without making huge salaries and/or without bounties. And just because a coach tells you to do it, that's not a valid excuse.

[Mr. WEO]

Well that's why I said this is different. Football is a violent game where players are paid to tackle other players. Players try to tackle other players hard. Sometimes players get hurt. Beyond that, the monetary incentives are so low with these "bounties" that they're wouldn't be considered financial inducements to injure. So you'd have to see what harm came to players as a result and then determine if that constitutes a "conspiracy" or not. And even the guy who wrote the article said it was a long shot.

 

 

Actually I think this helps the league. Here you have players who were being paid pittances compared to their salaries to potentially injure fellow players and they were okay with it. And players in past eras relished injuring each other without making huge salaries and/or without bounties. And just because a coach tells you to do it, that's not a valid excuse.

Doc, I don't know how else to put this. The bolded part is absolutely untrue. There does not have to be harm, or even a hit, for a conspiracy charge to be brought. And obviously the players are being enticed by the extra money to commit these acts that Williams is describing--otherwise he wouldn't have to offer extra money. This is simple logic.

 

The rest of your stuff (football is violent, guys get hurt) is irrelevant to this topic.

[Doc]

Doc, I don't know how else to put this. The bolded part is absolutely untrue. There does not have to be harm, or even a hit, for a conspiracy charge to be brought. And obviously the players are being enticed by the extra money to commit these acts that Williams is describing--otherwise he wouldn't have to offer extra money. This is simple logic.

 

The rest of your stuff (football is violent, guys get hurt) is irrelevant to this topic.

It's far from irrelevant since it is the reason this will go nowhere. And the rewards are nothing in comparison to what these guys are making. They essentially did it of their own volition since they could have resisted and/or said they were going to go along but failed to injure the player.

[GG]

You don't think that the growing number of civil cases of the retired players against the league won't be affected by the bounty and head hunting accusations? One of the primary reasons that Roger Goodell was so aggressive in responding to the New Orleans situation was that he was very aware how claims of intentionally hurting players will damage his position in court against the former players who are now physically impaired.

 

The only plausible argument for RICO is to go after the Saints as an organization and prove that it was the team that promoted criminal activity. I guess you could then stretch the argument that Saints did what they did at the behest of the league.

 

Never mind the difficult legal case you have in proving that the action was criminal, let alone tying the bounty to specific injury vs natural brutal contact of the sport. Then you have to think about the Pyrrhic victory of winning the case and killing the NFL golden goose, if your goal is to get compensation for past injuries.

[RealityCheck]

It's far from irrelevant since it is the reason this will go nowhere. And the rewards are nothing in comparison to what these guys are making. They essentially did it of their own volition since they could have resisted and/or said they were going to go along but failed to injure the player.

Doc. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but your grasp of RICO laws, how they are applied, the history of how they are actually applied and to whom is locked in some serious fantasy. RICO laws, particularly in the southern states, have greatly expanded in scope to prosecutors. They have grown into a pandoras box of "legal" civil rights violations and the successful prosecution of low-income/ low-level "conspirators". If you chose to cling to a Hollywood vision of a conspiracy then your assumptions are of course valid. When you watch TV shows you are obviously paying attention. Unfortunately I have a hard time understanding why you persist in debating Mr. WEO from that point of view. Fortunately for you however you clearly have no street level experience with this particular reality. What makes it to court has everything to do with politics, publicity, and what is financially lucrative to the bar association as an entity in a given jurisdiction. In practice all 3 are indivisible. Remember, ignorance of the law is never an acceptable excuse.

[Mr. WEO]

It's far from irrelevant since it is the reason this will go nowhere. And the rewards are nothing in comparison to what these guys are making. They essentially did it of their own volition since they could have resisted and/or said they were going to go along but failed to injure the player.

 

With conspiracy charges, again the bolded part is wrong.

 

Why would any of that stop a local prosecutor from deciding that Williams and players were guilty of criminal conspiracy to commit harm (assault) for money? And the existance of a bounty tells you that they would not do it "of there own volition". If the players all thought that the money wasn't worth it, non of them would have agreed to try to take guys out for extra money. You make no sense.

[Doc]

Doc. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but your grasp of RICO laws, how they are applied, the history of how they are actually applied and to whom is locked in some serious fantasy. RICO laws, particularly in the southern states, have greatly expanded in scope to prosecutors. They have grown into a pandoras box of "legal" civil rights violations and the successful prosecution of low-income/ low-level "conspirators". If you chose to cling to a Hollywood vision of a conspiracy then your assumptions are of course valid. When you watch TV shows you are obviously paying attention. Unfortunately I have a hard time understanding why you persist in debating Mr. WEO from that point of view. Fortunately for you however you clearly have no street level experience with this particular reality. What makes it to court has everything to do with politics, publicity, and what is financially lucrative to the bar association as an entity in a given jurisdiction. In practice all 3 are indivisible. Remember, ignorance of the law is never an acceptable excuse.

I take everything into account, RC. Hence the reason I said "this is different" and that it wouldn't go anywhere. But let me ask: do you think criminal conspiracy charges will, or should, be brought against Williams? Why or why not?

With conspiracy charges, again the bolded part is wrong.

 

Why would any of that stop a local prosecutor from deciding that Williams and players were guilty of criminal conspiracy to commit harm (assault) for money? And the existance of a bounty tells you that they would not do it "of there own volition". If the players all thought that the money wasn't worth it, non of them would have agreed to try to take guys out for extra money. You make no sense.

I don't know; when do you expect charges to be filed? And the motivation is bragging rights, not the money. Do you think that $1000-$1500 (the reported payouts, which apparently tripled in the post-season) is enough to get football players, most of whom make more than $600K a year, to commit an illegal act? That money doesn't even cover the fine for dirty hits, which the league punishes.

[RealityCheck]

I take everything into account, RC. Hence the reason I said "this is different" and that it wouldn't go anywhere. But let me ask: do you think criminal conspiracy charges will, or should, be brought against Williams? Why or why not?

 

I don't know; when do you expect charges to be filed? And the motivation is bragging rights, not the money. Do you think that $1000-$1500 (the reported payouts, which apparently tripled in the post-season) is enough to get football players, most of whom make more than $600K a year, to commit an illegal act? That money doesn't even cover the fine for dirty hits, which the league punishes.

In light of the strength of the cases brought against low income individuals in urban environments the answer is yes. Charges of criminal conspiracy are as obvious in this case as I have ever seen. Will it go to court? Highly unlikely. Why? The defendants in this case have ample resources and would easily be able to launch a stout, high profile legal defense team with the juice to launder cash in the necessary direction to avoid significant jail time. The lure of TV face time would help immensely in the defense attorney recruitment department. Secondly, there would have to be significant political will to approve such a high profile case against well heeled clients. Political will has to do with approval of an obviously large budget for the investigation and subsequent court battle that is very expensive when you go up against those who are not simply public defenders. In the political will department, how would the potential outcomes affect the prosecutors career moving forward? What about the local politicians that have elections to concern themselves with? Local politicians regardless of which city the case is filed in are typically members of the bar association themselves. To what extent would the case involve the NFLPA or the owners. It would be very expensive, politically damaging to many, a PR problem to justify a huge budget for one case when low level drug, gambling, and extortion cases can be easily won against inner city youth without media coverage and serve to pad law enforcements highly dubious statistics. Statistics that are quite effectively applied to the argument for increasing law enforcement budgets coast to coast.

[mrags]

With conspiracy charges, again the bolded part is wrong.

 

Why would any of that stop a local prosecutor from deciding that Williams and players were guilty of criminal conspiracy to commit harm (assault) for money? And the existance of a bounty tells you that they would not do it "of there own volition". If the players all thought that the money wasn't worth it, non of them would have agreed to try to take guys out for extra money. You make no sense.

Simple way to put this would be the word "attempted" in front of any criminal act. "attempted" murder, "attempted" robbery, "attempted" kidnapping, "attempted" assault. Your absolutely right Weo. There doesn't have to be any crime at all. As long as it is believed by a jury (in the event it ever does go to court) that there was reason to believe the players "attempted" to injur players.

 

End of story.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

End of story.

I think 'Nuf said" would have been more effective.

[Mr. WEO]

I take everything into account, RC. Hence the reason I said "this is different" and that it wouldn't go anywhere. But let me ask: do you think criminal conspiracy charges will, or should, be brought against Williams? Why or why not?

 

I don't know; when do you expect charges to be filed? And the motivation is bragging rights, not the money. Do you think that $1000-$1500 (the reported payouts, which apparently tripled in the post-season) is enough to get football players, most of whom make more than $600K a year, to commit an illegal act? That money doesn't even cover the fine for dirty hits, which the league punishes.

I don't know if or when charges would be filed (you're obfuscating now). I doesn't matter. I think it's an interesting question and as realityheck tells you below, the case for conspiracy is pretty clear. As for the amount of money, again your argument lacks a logical basis. It's clear that the amount of money was enough to entice player to participate in an enterprise who's only goal was to gain an advantage over an opponent not by outplaying them, but by eliminating them from competition with malice aforethought--attempting to injure individuals with hits tailored to specific weaknesses to produce specific injuries.

 

I think your argument is disingenuous (shocking) because there is no way you don't understand what is being discussed here.

 

In light of the strength of the cases brought against low income individuals in urban environments the answer is yes. Charges of criminal conspiracy are as obvious in this case as I have ever seen. Will it go to court? Highly unlikely. Why? The defendants in this case have ample resources and would easily be able to launch a stout, high profile legal defense team with the juice to launder cash in the necessary direction to avoid significant jail time. The lure of TV face time would help immensely in the defense attorney recruitment department. Secondly, there would have to be significant political will to approve such a high profile case against well heeled clients. Political will has to do with approval of an obviously large budget for the investigation and subsequent court battle that is very expensive when you go up against those who are not simply public defenders. In the political will department, how would the potential outcomes affect the prosecutors career moving forward? What about the local politicians that have elections to concern themselves with? Local politicians regardless of which city the case is filed in are typically members of the bar association themselves. To what extent would the case involve the NFLPA or the owners. It would be very expensive, politically damaging to many, a PR problem to justify a huge budget for one case when low level drug, gambling, and extortion cases can be easily won against inner city youth without media coverage and serve to pad law enforcements highly dubious statistics. Statistics that are quite effectively applied to the argument for increasing law enforcement budgets coast to coast.

Great post. But the defendants in a criminal case would be coaches and players. These guys are wealthy but nothing like owners--who would never be charged.

 

Simple way to put this would be the word "attempted" in front of any criminal act. "attempted" murder, "attempted" robbery, "attempted" kidnapping, "attempted" assault. Your absolutely right Weo. There doesn't have to be any crime at all. As long as it is believed by a jury (in the event it ever does go to court) that there was reason to believe the players "attempted" to injur players.

 

End of story.

 

Right again mrags. This whole question is interesting, to me, exactly because of the nature of legal conspiracy. Simply planning the crime is a crime. Any talk of "football is violent", "guys get hurt", "it wasn't much money", etc miss the point of this entire conversation completely.

[NoSaint]

I don't know if or when charges would be filed (you're obfuscating now). I doesn't matter. I think it's an interesting question and as realityheck tells you below, the case for conspiracy is pretty clear. As for the amount of money, again your argument lacks a logical basis. It's clear that the amount of money was enough to entice player to participate in an enterprise who's only goal was to gain an advantage over an opponent not by outplaying them, but by eliminating them from competition with malice aforethought--attempting to injure individuals with hits tailored to specific weaknesses to produce specific injuries.

 

I think your argument is disingenuous (shocking) because there is no way you don't understand what is being discussed here.

 

 

Great post. But the defendants in a criminal case would be coaches and players. These guys are wealthy but nothing like owners--who would never be charged.

 

 

 

Right again mrags. This whole question is interesting, to me, exactly because of the nature of legal conspiracy. Simply planning the crime is a crime. Any talk of "football is violent", "guys get hurt", "it wasn't much money", etc miss the point of this entire conversation completely.

 

I'd be curious on a straw poll:

 

a player makes a hit well within the rules but with intent to cause a damaging injury -crime? For instance hitting Crabtree in the knee, or Williams high anytime he's not defenseless and they get knocked out of the game.