Jump to content

Ed Oliver Arrested DWI


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, uticaclub said:

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

DD65BCB5-17D1-481F-BD9C-4E1715ACD8F0.jpeg

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.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, uticaclub said:

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

DD65BCB5-17D1-481F-BD9C-4E1715ACD8F0.jpeg

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Mr. WEO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...