Ed Oliver Arrested DWI

[Mr. WEO]

13 minutes ago, Happy said:

 

I think it is typical that first time violators get a break in sentencing.  If the standard (if that exists in Roger's world) for a violation of rules/conduct is a 4 game suspension, making the penalty 2 games for a first time violation appears to be typical.  Goodell is not going to drop the penalty for repeat violators.

 

2 games for first time DUI.  next year it goes up to 3.

[Doc]

9 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

I do realize that, yes.  That wasn’t my question.

If busted for DWI/gun, what would be the basis of his appeal?  How would he mitigate that?

 

If we're assuming Oliver was over the limit, it's an automatic 2 games (his incident happened before the new CBA took effect).  If Goodell tacks on 2 more games, it's likely because of the gun and/or open beer can charges.  Oliver/his agent/lawyer/whoever could argue that the gun only became an issue because of the DUI and the open beer can was part of the DUI.

[3rdand12]

9 hours ago, uticaclub said:

Im sure the citizen called because he was black, they could obviously tell thru the tinted glass at night.

i detect sarcasm.
 i think the point by Hap was, that a defense could be suggested based up these days and times we live in.
Not actual facts.
 

[Mr. WEO]

2 hours ago, Doc said:

 

If we're assuming Oliver was over the limit, it's an automatic 2 games (his incident happened before the new CBA took effect).  If Goodell tacks on 2 more games, it's likely because of the gun and/or open beer can charges.  Oliver/his agent/lawyer/whoever could argue that the gun only became an issue because of the DUI and the open beer can was part of the DUI.

likely for the gun.  Open beer on a DWI would fit league purposes be redundant.

 

Goodell would argue he has the same issue with drunk driving with a gun in possession as the state of Texas does—as an added charge.  That’s hardly a mitigating argument doc..

[Doc]

23 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

likely for the gun.  Open beer on a DWI would fit league purposes be redundant.

 

Goodell would argue he has the same issue with drunk driving with a gun in possession as the state of Texas does—as an added charge.  That’s hardly a mitigating argument doc..

 

Yeah and that's the logic he might use to tack-on an extra 2 games.  In which case they'd ask what a gun sitting in a car has to do with anything other than to trump-up charges...and he'd knock down the suspension.  Not hard to figure out the angle of attack here WEO...

[NoSaint]

9 hours ago, Happy said:

 

I think it is typical that first time violators get a break in sentencing.  If the standard (if that exists in Roger's world) for a violation of rules/conduct is a 4 game suspension, making the penalty 2 games for a first time violation appears to be typical.  Goodell is not going to drop the penalty for repeat violators.

It’s a CBA negotiated penalty. Unless there’s a mitigating reason it’s not reduced just for fun.

[Doc]

Just now, NoSaint said:

It’s a CBA negotiated penalty. Unless there’s a mitigating reason it’s not reduced just for fun.

 

Yup, even for1st time offenders it's a fixed 2 games currently and 3 games after this year.  And since Oliver's incident happened this year, I'd expect it to be 2 games and not 3.  Again, if he was over the limit.

[Mr. WEO]

20 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Yeah and that's the logic he might use to tack-on an extra 2 games.  In which case they'd ask what a gun sitting in a car has to do with anything other than to trump-up charges...and he'd knock down the suspension.  Not hard to figure out the angle of attack here WEO...

 

They would not be "trumped up charges" if he is over the legal limit.  Texas certainly would disagree with your conclusion, so it might be hard to convince Goodell that the State of Texas criminal code is flawed there:  "yeah well, Texas shouldn't be allowed to add the gun possession charge to a DWI".  I supposed if that's all his lawyer has...might as well put it out there.  It's a novel appeal argument.

 

[first_and_ten]

3 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

They would not be "trumped up charges" if he is over the legal limit.  Texas certainly would disagree with your conclusion, so it might be hard to convince Goodell that the State of Texas criminal code is flawed there:  "yeah well, Texas shouldn't be allowed to add the gun possession charge to a DWI".  I supposed if that's all his lawyer has...might as well put it out there.  It's a novel appeal argument.

 

 

I hope he gets punished enough to make him think about losing something near and dear to him. Trying to lighten the punishment might hurt him in the long run. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

10 hours ago, uticaclub said:

Im sure the citizen called because he was black, they could obviously tell thru the tinted glass at night.

 

That's sarcasm, right?

 

Read what I said: "I assume the appeal would point out that there has been a recent spate of citizens "calling in" the police on black people as "driving erratically" or "looking suspicious" and that the police in that area have a history of racial profiling."

 

I did not say nor imply the citizen in question called because he was black (though if someone's window is rolled down for a nice breeze and you pull up next to them at a stoplight, certainly one can tell). 

 

The question was what would be the grounds to appeal any discipline from the NFL.  I gave my view on what I believe would be used as grounds for appeal.

[Doc]

5 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

They would not be "trumped up charges" if he is over the legal limit.  Texas certainly would disagree with your conclusion, so it might be hard to convince Goodell that the State of Texas criminal code is flawed there:  "yeah well, Texas shouldn't be allowed to add the gun possession charge to a DWI".  I supposed if that's all his lawyer has...might as well put it out there.  It's a novel appeal argument.

 

You asked how they would fight it and I told you.  And it would only be novel because I haven't heard of a player who was DUI with an otherwise legal firearm in his car.  Jayron Kearse was close as he was nabbed for being DUI (.10) and having a gun at the end of October last year, but he didn't have a permit for the gun.  He pleaded guilty at the end of February.  We'll have to see how Rog punishes him for that.  And again, Rog has changed his mind in the past.

 

[Mr. WEO]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

You asked how they would fight it and I told you.  And it would only be novel because I haven't heard of a player who was DUI with an otherwise legal firearm in his car.  Jayron Kearse was close as he was nabbed for being DUI (.10) and having a gun at the end of October last year, but he didn't have a permit for the gun.  He pleaded guilty at the end of February.  We'll have to see how Rog punishes him for that.  And again, Rog has changed his mind in the past.

 

The point is that they can’t claim they they were trumped up charges because they are 3 violations of the law in Texas.  If Texas thinks that’s a very bad combo worthy of compound charges it’s hard to imagine the NFL would think it’s no big deal.
 

You haven’t heard of it because perhaps the players you are familiar with weren’t busted armed and drunk driving in Texas. 

[first_and_ten]

6 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

The point is that they can’t claim they they were trumped up charges because they are 3 violations of the law in Texas.  If Texas thinks that’s a very bad combo worthy of compound charges it’s hard to imagine the NFL would think it’s no big deal.
 

You haven’t heard of it because perhaps the players you are familiar with weren’t busted armed and drunk driving in Texas. 

 

Well, they could say the charges were trumped up if some aspect of the report is false

[Doc]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

The point is that they can’t claim they they were trumped up charges because they are 3 violations of the law in Texas.  If Texas thinks that’s a very bad combo worthy of compound charges it’s hard to imagine the NFL would think it’s no big deal.
 

You haven’t heard of it because perhaps the players you are familiar with weren’t busted armed and drunk driving in Texas. 

 

Yeah, there's the letter of the law...and then there's reason.  It's why Rog allows players to appeal and why he sometimes reduces his initial rulings. 

 

And yes, like I said, that's what makes it novel.  We'll have somewhat of an idea when Rog rules on the Kearse case, but again, that wasn't a legal gun.

[Mr. WEO]

22 minutes ago, first_and_ten said:

 

Well, they could say the charges were trumped up if some aspect of the report is false

 

Yes, that would be the definition of "trumped up charges".  But obviously such would doom the DA's case.  No help there.

 

8 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Yeah, there's the letter of the law...and then there's reason.  It's why Rog allows players to appeal and why he sometimes reduces his initial rulings. 

 

And yes, like I said, that's what makes it novel.  We'll have somewhat of an idea when Rog rules on the Kearse case, but again, that wasn't a legal gun.

 

If Goodell has concluded that the Texas law is "unreasonable" then, sure.  He would already have an opinion on that though. 

[Doc]

18 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

If Goodell has concluded that the Texas law is "unreasonable" then, sure.  He would already have an opinion on that though. 

 

Yeah his opinion would be the initial suspension, and then on appeal would be shown reason.  It's why he's reduced suspensions in the past.

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

Yeah his opinion would be the initial suspension, and then on appeal would be shown reason.  It's why he's reduced suspensions in the past.

 

Has he reduced a suspension in the past where he said he felt the charges for which a player was convicted were unreasonable?

 

Also, if the mandatory for DWI is 2 games and the added weapon conviction is what leads Goodell feel  it should be bumped up to 4, why would he then reduce it to 2?  He would have already considered the gun conviction as the reason to go 4, why would he then consider the gun conviction simultaneously unreasonable and then reduce to 2?  That wouldn't make any sense.  If thinks the gun charge is bogus, he wouldn't give him 4 in the first place.  It's not like he's appealing someone else's ruling.

Edited June 25, 2020 by Mr. WEO

[Doc]

10 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

Has he reduced a suspension in the past where he said he felt the charges for which a player was convicted were unreasonable?

 

Also, if the mandatory for DWI is 2 games and the added weapon conviction is what leads Goodell feel  it should be bumped up to 4, why would he then reduce it to 2?  He would have already considered the gun conviction as the reason to go 4, why would he then consider the gun conviction simultaneously unreasonable and then reduce to 2?  That wouldn't make any sense.  If thinks the gun charge is bogus, he wouldn't give him 4 in the first place.  It's not like he's appealing someone else's ruling.

 

He doesn't have to reduce it to 4, just 3.  

[Mr. WEO]

45 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

He doesn't have to reduce it to 4, just 3.  

4 wouldn't be a reduction.  I used 4 as the max.

 

It makes no sense for him to say "I'm bumping it up to 4 because of the weapons conviction increases the severity of the infraction" and then subsequently say "I'm reducing to 2 because I feel the weapons conviction is bogus".. 

 

If he thinks the gun conviction is "trumped up", he won't give him more than the DWI 2.

[Doc]

5 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

4 wouldn't be a reduction.  I used 4 as the max.

 

It makes no sense for him to say "I'm bumping it up to 4 because of the weapons conviction increases the severity of the infraction" and then subsequently say "I'm reducing to 2 because I feel the weapons conviction is bogus".. 

 

If he thinks the gun conviction is "trumped up", he won't give him more than the DWI 2.

 

You know what I meant.  He wouldn't have to reduce it to 2, just 3.  

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

You know what I meant.  He wouldn't have to reduce it to 2, just 3.  

 

Still not sure why he would reduce it at all by your reasoning.

[Doc]

29 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Still not sure why he would reduce it at all by your reasoning.

 

Why has he ever reduced any suspension?  We never hear the exact reasons but it's obviously because the appellant made a convincing case and Goodell agreed and decided to reduce the suspension.

[Bangarang]

35 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Why has he ever reduced any suspension?  We never hear the exact reasons but it's obviously because the appellant made a convincing case and Goodell agreed and decided to reduce the suspension.

Someone can correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think the Commissioner hears the appeals. The appeal is head by a “hearing officer” and they make the final decision. 

Edited June 25, 2020 by Bangarang

[Doc]

25 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

Someone can correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think the Commissioner hears the appeals. The appeal is head by a “hearing officer” and they make the final decision. 

I always thought it was Goodell. Can anyone confirm or deny this?

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

Why has he ever reduced any suspension?  We never hear the exact reasons but it's obviously because the appellant made a convincing case and Goodell agreed and decided to reduce the suspension.

 

In the case you describe, if he things the weapons charge is bogus, he wouldn't give him extra games.  If he doesn't think it's bogus and gives extra games, there's nothing Oliver could say that would change his mind about the second charge.  There's no mitigating factor he could provide to change Goodell's mind about the charge.

9 minutes ago, Doc said:

I always thought it was Goodell. Can anyone confirm or deny this?

 

One can deny anything, only the truth can be confirmed.

[Doc]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

In the case you describe, if he things the weapons charge is bogus, he wouldn't give him extra games.  If he doesn't think it's bogus and gives extra games, there's nothing Oliver could say that would change his mind about the second charge.  There's no mitigating factor he could provide to change Goodell's mind about the charge.

 

What about 4 games to 3?

 

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

One can deny anything, only the truth can be confirmed.

 

And that would be...?

[Mr. WEO]

22 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

What about 4 games to 3?

 

 

And that would be...?

That’s a truism.

 

If he thinks it’s worth 3 he’ll give 3 to start.  If he concludes the weapons charge warrants 4 he can’t then say “oh, I meant 3”.  There’s nothing about the gun charge that isn’t known.  Oliver can’t explain it away if the charge sticks. Simple as that

 

[Bangarang]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

I always thought it was Goodell. Can anyone confirm or deny this?

This is from the NFLPA

 

[Doc]

35 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

This is from the NFLPA

 

 

Thanks.  So Goodell is cut-out of the appeals process. 

[Bangarang]

4 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Thanks.  So Goodell is cut-out of the appeals process. 

Yes and no. It sounds like Goodell can still serve as a hearing officer but I’m not sure how much say the NFLPA has in that.

[Punching Bag]

Notice section 2c.  Oliver can basically act like Kraft and keep putting it off until COVID-19 issues are gone.  A blow was involved in both cases but they were very different.  If I was any player I'd push for hearing after Krafty's.

[plenzmd1]

On 5/17/2020 at 6:04 AM, Teddy KGB said:

The guy that wanted to fight his college coach is an idiot.    
 

Couldn’t see this one coming ??‍♂️??‍♂️

 

On 5/17/2020 at 6:13 AM, Joe in Winslow said:

 

@Teddy KGB has an excellent point about this. This was a guy who wanted to fight his college coach over a coat. He's just not smart.

 

On 5/17/2020 at 6:31 AM, matter2003 said:

Probably looking at a 4 game suspension at least

 

On 5/17/2020 at 6:50 AM, CLTbills said:

And there was a big debate on this board and some of us got shredded for pointing out that it was an issue.

 

On 5/17/2020 at 7:00 AM, Niagara Bill said:

Listen for the other shoe...!

 

On 5/17/2020 at 7:13 AM, Joe in Winslow said:

It means he's an idiot.

 

On 5/17/2020 at 7:33 AM, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Point is, dude should know better than to drive with an open container, man. Don't be obtuse. He's a grown man and should be held accountable for his stupidity.

 

Edit: I paid a price for my mistake. Why? Because I was an adult and mistakes have consequences.

 

On 5/17/2020 at 8:03 AM, Giuseppe Tognarelli said:

With the Bills shirt on.

 

This guy's work ethic was already in question; now this raises legitimate bust concerns.

 

On 5/17/2020 at 8:10 AM, Chandler#81 said:

Ed Oliver now officially enters the inescapable level of moron. Congratulations Ed, you’ve worked hard for this. You deserve it.

 

On 5/17/2020 at 8:46 AM, JMF2006 said:

The good news is that he wasn`t involved in an accident where someone was hurt.

 

The bad news is that he should know better.

 

I am calling 4 games from the league.

 

I hope he gets at least 200 hours of community service from the courts(that should keep him busy)

 

On 5/17/2020 at 8:48 AM, Bangarang said:

The league may not care how much over the limit he was. He’s still probably going to be suspended.

 

It also doesn’t matter if the gun was legally his, he was in possession of it while committing a crime. Hence the additional gun charge.

 

On 5/17/2020 at 8:54 AM, Process said:

That sucks. I would think 2 games. Luckily we couldn't ask for an easier start to our schedule so I'm not too concerned. What an idiot. 

 

How drunk do you have to be to not only be drinking as you drive but leave the can between your legs when you get pulled over.

 

On 5/17/2020 at 9:02 AM, die hard bills fan said:

just irresponsible.

 

On 5/17/2020 at 9:07 AM, Locomark said:

Way to go Ed. Thanks for adding a handicap to a season where we are the favorites. BRING BACK KYLE!!!!

First 8 pages of a 70 page thread, and the hot takes were legendary!

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

Again?!?!  Oh, never mind.

[Warcodered]

28 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First 8 pages of a 70 page thread, and the hot takes were legendary!

Well @Joe in Winslow has a point if this was D.K. Metcalf it would of been dismissed months ago and he'd of gotten more sacks.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

6 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

Well @Joe in Winslow has a point if this was D.K. Metcalf it would of been dismissed months ago and he'd of gotten more sacks.

 

?

[Doc]

Great DUI unit they got there.  So much for suspecting he was impaired...by anything.

[Big Turk]

1 hour ago, plenzmd1 said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First 8 pages of a 70 page thread, and the hot takes were legendary!

 

So are you saying that driving with an open beer can and loaded gun in the car is a smart thing?

 

Great that he isn't facing charges but this type of behavior is idiotic at best.

[Roger Goodell]

The NFL is satisfied with the decision of Texas authorities in the matter involving the Buffalo Bills' Ed Oliver and we do not anticipate the need for any league issued discipline.  However as a result of the investigation, the NFL has awarded the New England Patriots a fifth round compensatory selection in the 2021 draft.

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

22 minutes ago, Roger Goodell said:

The NFL is satisfied with the decision of Texas authorities in the matter involving the Buffalo Bills' Ed Oliver and we do not anticipate the need for any league issued discipline.  However as a result of the investigation, the NFL has awarded the New England Patriots a fifth round compensatory selection in the 2021 draft.

HE can say it!  ?

*
?

Edited July 22, 2020 by Ridgewaycynic2013

[Motorin']

29 minutes ago, matter2003 said:

 

So are you saying that driving with an open beer can and loaded gun in the car is a smart thing?

 

Great that he isn't facing charges but this type of behavior is idiotic at best.

I'd love to see the evidence that he actually had an open beer can.