Saints: Criminal Conspiracy?

[Mr. WEO]

The most obvious answer as to why this isn't "criminal conspiracy" is because no one (except for a few internet lawyers here) have even suggested it is, for the reasons I mentioned. IOW, it just isn't. Needing to invoke a "conspiracy" here is as wacky as the conspiracy theories you've laughed at me about, so this time it's me laughing at you. Basically it was one idiot (Williams) who egged-on some other idiots to do stupid stuff. He got punished and they too will likely get punished. Why it needs to go beyond that, when none of the aggrieved parties will likely cooperate, is anyone's guess.

 

It isn't criminal conspiracy because not enough people have said it is?

 

Not sure how else to help you with the concept of criminal conspiracy. You seem to be stuck on the vernacular use. Also, why would you turn your argument on the fact that the refs are responsible for calling penalties when you have famously called them incompetent at best and on the take at worst?

[Doc]

It isn't criminal conspiracy because not enough people have said it is?

 

Not sure how else to help you with the concept of criminal conspiracy. You seem to be stuck on the vernacular use. Also, why would you turn your argument on the fact that the refs are responsible for calling penalties when you have famously called them incompetent at best and on the take at worst?

Yes, it isn't because, again, "this is different" hence the reason no one else has said it. As for the refs, do you now want to include them in the "conspiracy?"

[GG]

On the basis of a civil challenge by the retired players let's get away from the concept of league "conspirancy" to the more attainable legal concept of "negligence" by the league. That is the essence of the point I'm trying to make.

 

I have already emphatically dismissed the notion of a criminal conspirancy on prior postings. I believe that Roger Goodell is very aware of the retired players' civil case against the league and his vulnerability in the case regarding player safety and post-career responsibilities.

 

I give Roger Goodell a lot of credit. What he is trying to do to is in essence change the culture of the sport and how it is played. That is a very tall task to accomplish in a collision sport. He is not doing this out of altruism but out of self-interest of protecting the golden goose.

 

In general, I think we are more in accord than discord on this issue. Sometimes minor or nuanced differences can seem much larger than they actually are.

 

I think we're definitely arguing along similar lines as far as what the retired players will argue and why Goodell is acting the way he has been in the last two years.

 

I'm just trying to bring the discussion back to the criminal conspiracy angle, since that's the OP & topic of the thread.

[Mr. WEO]

Yes, it isn't because, again, "this is different" hence the reason no one else has said it. As for the refs, do you now want to include them in the "conspiracy?"

No, doc. You can keep your paranoia about the refs. As for conspiracy--go look it up yourself. It's pretty simple. But if your argument begins and ends with "this is different", then I guess your done.

[Doc]

No, doc. You can keep your paranoia about the refs. As for conspiracy--go look it up yourself. It's pretty simple. But if your argument begins and ends with "this is different", then I guess your done.

You were done awhile ago, doc. You just haven't figured that out yet (no surprise there). But I'll keep a lookout for anyone else espousing the "criminal conspiracy" wackiness, much less wait for charges to be brought.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

You've said a number of things I agree with - - here's one:

 

. . . Your race, profile, zip code, social status and associations have everything to do with how zealous and over reaching an investigation may or not be. If OJ never played football, was not wealthy, was never on TV nor had his trial aired and used a public defender you can rest assured that he would have been convicted the first time and would still be in jail. . . .

 

When you get off the soapbox and stop complaining about how access to justice isn't the same for everyone in our capitalistic society, let's talk about the part of your prior post that I still disagree with. Here it is:

 

 

. . . In criminal conspiracy charges all you have to do is be proven to have had knowledge of the intended crime and you are going to jail. As these laws are clearly worded you are an equally culpable co-conspirator. Thousands of people see jail time coast to coast every year in cases where these individuals are found guilty for RICO violations without ever directly taking part in an actual crime. The crime is knowledge of someone else's intent and is controversial BUT prevalent in the US court system. For example, if you have a friend that is a driver for drug shipments and he confides in you in anyway shape or form that is recorded by an instrument (such as a wire tapped phone) that is in fact a RICO violation . . .

 

The parts I highlighted in bold simply aren't true. According to you, mere knowledge of someone else's intent to commit a crime is itself a "prevalent" crime in the US court system, and some laws are "clearly worded" to show that such knowledge alone is itself a crime. If that's true, it shouldn't be very hard or time consuming for you to provide one verifiable example of such a prosecution or the text of one such law.

 

I get that (1) prosecutors have the ability to use the full weight of the government's justice machinery to roll over the poor, weak or stupid, and (2) poorly paid public defenders often aren't the sharpest tools in the legal shed. But that has nothing to do with how the criminal laws are worded, or whether mere knowledge of someone else's intent to commit a crime is itself often prosecuted as a criminal offense.