Texans' Deshaun Watson accused of indecent conduct in civil lawsuit; QB denies wrongdoing

[Mr. WEO]

3 hours ago, Patrick_Duffy said:

Are there even any jurors in a civil case? Thought jurors were there for criminal/appeals etc. Thought just had to convince the judge as for he/she dealt the verdict? I'm not 100% on that but anyways....

 

Here in the US, yes.

 

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

We don't have jurors in civil hearings in the UK. It is very old fashioned to me. Indeed I was in charge of the legislation that abolished the last presumption in favour of jury trial in civil proceedings (in defamation) in 2013.  

 

Edit: actually I think there is still a presumption for false imprisonment in the civil courts although in reality the presumption is always rebutted and the trials are judge only.

 

You've reached the apex of civility.  Civil court jury trials here are absolutely ridiculous.  Particularly malpractice. 

 

[mannc]

4 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

We don't have jurors in civil hearings in the UK. It is very old fashioned to me. Indeed I was in charge of the legislation that abolished the last presumption in favour of jury trial in civil proceedings (in defamation) in 2013.  

 

Edit: actually I think there is still a presumption for false imprisonment in the civil courts although in reality the presumption is always rebutted and the trials are judge only.

Thanks.  Did not know that about the UK.

[chongli]

18 hours ago, Patrick_Duffy said:

ok, was curious because every claims court (which is also civil right?) I have ever had the pleasure of attending there was no jury. I see that's Texas so figured states do different things so wasn't sure.

 

You are thinking of small-claims courts, where they key word is "small". And yes, it is also civil, but since it is "small", items like juries are remedies like injunctions and amount you can claim are often limited:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_claims_court

 

"Trial by jury is seldom or never conducted in small-claims courts; it is typically excluded by the statute establishing the court. "

[cba fan]

On 5/19/2021 at 12:30 AM, GunnerBill said:

 

No he doesn't. That is a misunderstanding of the law I am afraid. The standard of proof is the lower standard - the balance of probabilities - but the burden to prove that standard falls on the plaintiff. That bit is no different to a criminal case. The defendant's version of events is assumed and the claimant must prove to the court that their assertion is more likely than not true. The defense doesn't have to "prove" anything. What it has to do is simply create sufficient doubt about the assertions of the plaintiff. You need to create more doubt in a civil case because of the lower standard but you don't have to prove innocence. That is not what the law is founded on. It is founded on the principle that one must prove guilt (or liability to be precise as we are talking civil law). 

 

I have said already in this thread on numerous occasions that I think on the basis of the evidence that is in the public domain the plaintiff has a strong case to prove the civil standard. But the burden remains on them to prove it.

agreed. I did not state my point as correctly as I should have. ty for details.

 

Edited May 20, 2021 by cba fan

[Numark3]

On 5/19/2021 at 3:58 PM, Patrick_Duffy said:

I didn't think there was here. At least not the civil cases I have been involved with. A poster posted a link that they do, however that was in Texas. So maybe some states do and some don't. Anyways...

 There are jury trials for virtually all civil cases in all states.  Small claims courts vary by state, but a lot can still have juries.

 

like criminal trials, parties can agree to a bench trial which is just a judge with no jury.  But it isn’t very common, this is a guess, but it may be more common in criminal trials than general civil trials (excluding types that is general practice to not have a jury) to not have a jury.  I could be very wrong on the last point

Edited May 21, 2021 by Crayola64

[YoloinOhio]

 

[YoloinOhio]

 

[TBBills]

Almost forgotten about this guy...

 

So he isn't going to be on the Texans one way or another I am guessing. Hopefully he goes to the NFC they need good QBs.

Edited July 25, 2021 by TBBills

[YoloinOhio]

He would have fined 50k for every day he didn’t show. Not sure how this will play out. Is roger going to put him on the list? Or just let him play until he goes to court or settles?

[YoloinOhio]

 

[YoloinOhio]

No cause? I guess we will see 

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

7 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

No cause? I guess we will see 

 

 

 

I understand the points about the salary, fines, and message to trade partners.

 

I don't understand the "no cause to put him on exempt list".  Goodell has shown again and again that his decisions don't necessarily play out as others expect.

 

I also don't understand who the trade partners would be, for a trade.  At this point every team has gone ahead with their own plans.  If Rodgers retires and GB gets their money back, Green Bay could use a QB but unsure they can afford him.  Certainly if Rodgers retires, then unretires to be traded, GB would need cap for that.

[NoSaint]

2 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I understand the points about the salary, fines, and message to trade partners.

 

I don't understand the "no cause to put him on exempt list".  Goodell has shown again and again that his decisions don't necessarily play out as others expect.

I think the point being made is “I am here and they have not done it yet - for a reason” as opposed to staying away and the reason potentially being that he made it easy to side step the formal designation being placed 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

19 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

I think the point being made is “I am here and they have not done it yet - for a reason” as opposed to staying away and the reason potentially being that he made it easy to side step the formal designation being placed 

 

I don't grasp the meaning "he made it easy to side step the formal designation being placed"

[NoSaint]

2 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I don't grasp the meaning "he made it easy to side step the formal designation being placed"

if he voluntarily isn’t showing up already the league office may be a bit slower to take a stance that they would have to legally defend. 

showing up forces their hands to say whether or not he’s allowed in the building.

Edited July 25, 2021 by NoSaint

[machine gun kelly]

My guess is he is going to pay a ridiculous amt. of $ to get out of it, the defendants all of a sudden are silent, and he is suspended for a year.

 

The crazy thing is there are still teams interested in paying for his rights, and waiting for him.  Don’t sleep on Miami.  I’m hopeful Tua has a great year.  I actually hope he does as I don’t want to face Watson for a decade.  The rest of the fins team is talented.  Better to have that show some talent and they don’t take a huge investment on Watson. 
 

Watson bad for us.  Tua good.  Let them take second place and win 10 games ahead again of the pats.  That would be fun, but still maybe a wildcard 1 and done.  Ship watson to the nfc somewhere.  God knows there WB’s are getting old.

Edited July 26, 2021 by machine gun kelly

[Albany,n.y.]

2 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

Every time Tyrod thinks he's going to be his team's starter, they yank the ball away like Lucy does to Charlie Brown. 

[starrymessenger]

If Watson settles with the ladies admitting no wrongdoing but just to put this behind him I don’t quite see why or how he gets a suspension. However this resolves I sure dont want to see him in Miami. 

[machine gun kelly]

3 minutes ago, Albany,n.y. said:

Every time Tyrod thinks he's going to be his team's starter, they yank the ball away like Lucy does to Charlie Brown. 

Like this…

 

Love the reference.

[Mr. WEO]

Let him go to Miami--who cares?  If posters think the Bills would have a problem getting past the Miami Watsons...then they can't think the Bills are a threat to the Chiefs.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

3 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Let him go to Miami--who cares?  If posters think the Bills would have a problem getting past the Miami Watsons...then they can't think the Bills are a threat to the Chiefs.

 

He’s a point here, you know.

 

Counterpoint, there’s a diff between facing a team once in the playoffs and facing them every season, twice a season.  Most people say latter is harder.

[Mr. WEO]

4 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

He’s a point here, you know.

 

Counterpoint, there’s a diff between facing a team once in the playoffs and facing them every season, twice a season.  Most people say latter is harder.

 

Bills won't be meeting the Fins in the playoffs.

[NoSaint]

1 hour ago, Albany,n.y. said:

Every time Tyrod thinks he's going to be his team's starter, they yank the ball away like Lucy does to Charlie Brown. 

He’s like the anti fitz

[SinceThe70s]

9 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

He’s a point here, you know.

 

Counterpoint, there’s a diff between facing a team once in the playoffs and facing them every season, twice a season.  Most people say latter is harder.

 

I want a team that can beat everyone else no matter how hard it is. This team and Josh gives me hope that we are on that path. I don't think the 90's Bills would have won a SB if Marino wasn't in our division - and if Watson becomes a Dolphin I'll still expect Josh and the Bills to still be better. IMO, great teams/players embrace playing and beating other great teams/players.   

 

Go Bills!

[Augie]

32 minutes ago, SinceThe70s said:

 

I want a team that can beat everyone else no matter how hard it is. This team and Josh gives me hope that we are on that path. I don't think the 90's Bills would have won a SB if Marino wasn't in our division - and if Watson becomes a Dolphin I'll still expect Josh and the Bills to still be better. IMO, great teams/players embrace playing and beating other great teams/players.   

 

Go Bills!

 

I don’t disagree, but it sure didn’t hurt the Patriots* to play a dysfunctional AFCE for a couple decades. Those bye weeks and home playoff games were worth a ring or two, I’m guessing. 

 

I do like the spirit and attitude, however! 

[SinceThe70s]

10 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

I don’t disagree, but it sure didn’t hurt the Patriots* to play a dysfunctional AFCE for a couple decades. Those bye weeks and home playoff games were worth a ring or two, I’m guessing. 

 

I do like the spirit and attitude, however! 

 

No doubt about the Patriots - and I thought similar as I was typing my post. 

 

I've spent the majority of my life rooting for teams with limited success. I want more! 

 

And as it turns out the three teams I root for are all looking pretty good right now. But I need at least one to dominate. Bills may be the most likely of the three to do that. 

[machine gun kelly]

17 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Bills won't be meeting the Fins in the playoffs.

Weo, I’m sure you know Hap means we would likely face the Chiefs in the playoffs for probably many years, vs. we definitely will face the Fins twice every year, and the Fins are better with Watson.  I’m not afraid of a Watson led Fins team, but I would respect their talent.  We’ve owned the Dolphins for the Allen years.  It will be harder winning against the Dolphins with Watson at the lead.  They have a talented team outside of the QB.  

[GunnerBill]

If he is traded my understanding was before everything cooled off in the spring the Panthers were the team at the head of the chase. Their view is allegedly if he doesn't face criminal charges they want him, hence they didn't draft a guy they took a flier on Sam Darnold. That isn't to say Miami couldn't re-emerge but it is by no means a done deal that if he is traded it is to the Dolphins.

[Matt_In_NH]

Looks like the Texans owner is winning this little battle of ego's.

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, machine gun kelly said:

Weo, I’m sure you know Hap means we would likely face the Chiefs in the playoffs for probably many years, vs. we definitely will face the Fins twice every year, and the Fins are better with Watson.  I’m not afraid of a Watson led Fins team, but I would respect their talent.  We’ve owned the Dolphins for the Allen years.  It will be harder winning against the Dolphins with Watson at the lead.  They have a talented team outside of the QB.  

 

 I agree it will be harder, but I don't see the worry re: Bills path to the SB.

[YoloinOhio]

 

Here we go?

[DJB]

18 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

Here we go?

 

The Texans are better off telling Watson to stay home until there js more clarity on his legal matters. Once that is settled teams might be more willing to pay a premium to acquire him. 

 

I'm pretty skeptical that a team and an owner would move 3 firsts given the current state. 

[YoloinOhio]

 

[chongli]

27 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

Here we go?

 

In response to this guy's tweet, no team is going to trade for him until the legal matters are resolved.

[YoloinOhio]

 

[DJB]

Honestly if I was an owner I wouldn't take Watson for free. I dont want people like him in my organization especially at the QB position representing my franchise. 

Edited July 26, 2021 by DJB

[Dablitzkrieg]

Not with a 10 foot pole for this PR nightmare 

[thenorthremembers]

1 minute ago, Dablitzkrieg said:

Not with a 10 foot pole for this PR nightmare 

Exactly.  I am not sure why this is even a thing right now.  I also agree with the Texans stance.  If I am the GM there I want everything and more.  Teams only get a QB of Watson's ability once every 20 years.   If I cant get 3+ first round picks, plus players in return, then he can sit at home or retire.  He signed the contract very recently, it was the same owner then. 

[starrymessenger]

Not wanting to see Watson in Miami has nothing to do with fear. Realistically its just a sober assessment that our path is more difficult the better the competition in AFCE becomes. Its already going to be hard enuf to win a championship.

People are discounting what Watson could bring to that team, maybe because they dont think he will wind up there. And his not winding up there would be my preference for sure. 

We had our hands full beating Fitz at times. Watson is without question an elite playmaker at the all important position.  He would transform that offence IMO.

[H2o]

I can't believe he hasn't found himself on the Commissioner's exempt list as of yet at the least.