From Dawg Pound to Bills Mafia - Browns Fans Leaving for the Bills

[HamSandwhich]

8 minutes ago, KDIGGZ said:

Sometimes you have to use common sense. Why would a massage therapist who has a very successful business make up this story, immediately call their friend about it, have text messages showing her telling him he was inappropriate and she can't treat him? This was years before the other allegations, she didn't know he was like that. If it wasn't true he would respond saying what the heck are you talking about? Or she would try to sue him but she hasn't because she doesn't want to lose any business by going public.

 

I know someone who was sexually assaulted. They also did not want to go to the authorities, they just wanted to forget it ever happened. If you go to the authorities you have to relive it over and over again. For these 22+ women to come forward it's incredibly brave of them and maybe some of them are lying but I highly doubt all of them are and considering there are others that didn't even come forward shows there's more to this than we might even know. And now this guy represents the city of Cleveland and is the highest paid player in the league in terms of guaranteed money. Not only the face of the Browns but one of the faces of the entire NFL!

Your “common sense” is confirmation bias.

Edited March 19, 2022 by HamSandwhich

[frostbitmic]

Week 1 when Watson throws for 300+ and 4 TD's in a win over the Steelers, all will be forgiven.

[GunnerBill]

13 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

I don't believe in black and white principles. I don't agree that it is always true that the court of public opinion overriding the court of law is wrong. The criminal burden of proof is not the same as my burden of proof. I'm glad that as a society we have incredibly high standards for judging whether an individual deserves to be thrown in prison for several years. I would rather let 1,000 guilty men walk free than let a single innocent man go to prison. So trust me when I say I know the principle you're defending and I agree with it wholeheartedly. But that standard is talking about criminal punishment. Watson being denied the privilege of being an NFL QB is a substantially lower punishment and the burden of proof is equally lower in my mind. If an angry mob rounded up Watson and held him hostage in a jail cell for 3 years that would be different. Employers make decisions about their employees all the time for actions that aren't even illegal. If I post hate speech on my Facebook page I won't be arrested but I will certainly lose my job and my place in society. Would you consider that to be the court of public opinion overriding the court of law?

 

Then I am afraid we will never agree on this topic. It is always wrong. 

[GunnerBill]

12 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

I wanted to come back to this point because the answer is that you judge everything on a case by case basis. If 22 massage therapists come forward and say that they were sexually assaulted by a local teacher I would expect that teacher to lose his job. You yourself have admitted that there was never a practical chance of Watson being found to be criminally liable for his actions because in a "he said she said" case it is impossible to meet the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." So you seem to be saying that in the case of sexual assault there is nothing society can do to punish those responsible, and I just don't agree with that. For cases like this where an individual has shown themselves to be incapable of functioning appropriately in society, some form of societal exclusion may in fact be the only possible method of punishment without upending our legal system. If it was just one person coming forward and accusing Watson of this behavior then I would 100% agree with you. But 22+... I don't know exactly where my line is but it's certainly far short of that number.

 

I am sorry I still don't agree. It is because we have introduced a watering down of what were once considered the sacrosanct principles of an objective and fair justice system that we have ended up in some of this quagmire in the first place where we have mob rule on social media overtaking proper principles of fairness, justice and democracy. If we want to avoid further erosion of those principles then we have to defend them even in circumstances where it is uncomfortable to do so, and I have never once doubted that there was a disturbing pattern of behaviour with Deshaun Watson. But we can't say "the justice system hasn't found the answer we want, so in the case societal sanctions are justified because this is a special case." Trust me when I say every case is a special case to the people involved. You either defend the principle that the courts determine guilt and liability and can be trusted to apply the appropriate penalty or you don't because once you start making an exception then every case can be argued for one reason or another to be an exception. You have to defend it. Watson might be a piece of trash but he is innocent in the eyes of the law and it is the law who should decide. He should be free to go on about his business and his career.  

Edited March 19, 2022 by GunnerBill

[Logic]

All this stuff about the legal system….

 

The legal system only decides whether and to what degree a person will face legal repercussions. If what the legal system decides is sufficient to shape some people’s feelings about an accused person, and/or how they react to or support or do not support said person, then fine, that’s their choice.

 

That said, it is also perfectly valid to form an opinion about an accused person based on the cumulative total of allegations and/or evidence at hand. For me, the legal system is not the be-all/end-all arbiter if my reaction to or feeling about an accused person. It is far too deeply flawed to ascribe to it any final say in how I feel about a person alleged to have committed crimes or misconduct.

 

As such, regardless of the grand jury decision about Watson, I still feel — based on the collective weight of the 22 complaints, the similar nature and specificity of those complaints, and the egregiously heinous conduct described therein — that Watson is likely guilty to some degree. At best, he is a person of low moral character, either unaware or uncaring of the ways in which his abuse of power and wealth affected the lives of others. At worst, he is a serial sexual predator and quite possibly a rapist.

 

I find it incredibly unlikely that he is completely innocent.

 

I have very low tolerance and sympathy for serial sex offenders.

 

All of the above leads me to this: I find Watson reprehensible, legal status of his cases be damned, because I believe his accusers. If the Bills traded for him, I’d be finding a new team to root for. It’s that simple for me. I could not cheer for a man like this. I am incredibly disgusted by all angles of it, from the Browns’ willingness to trade for and pay Watson, to the NFL and the media’s handling of it, to obviously Watson’s (alleged) conduct itself. 
 

Welcome, any and all Browns fans who feel the same.

[GunnerBill]

Just now, BUFFALOBART said:

When lightning strikes once, it is the element of chance. When it strikes 22 times, something is definitely not right.

 

 

Again, I have not disputed this a single time. 

[Punching Bag]

12 hours ago, Mc1320 said:

Feel bad for another blue collar town….Jimmy Haslam is a scumbag.

 

Wonder which Browns owner would get more tomatoes thrown at him by Browns fans - Jimmy Haslam or Art Modell?

[YoloinOhio]

1 minute ago, Limeaid said:

 

Wonder which Browns owner would get more tomatoes thrown at him by Browns fans - Jimmy Haslam or Art Modell?

There were protesters this morning outside of Kevin Stefanski’s house 

[Punching Bag]

Just now, YoloinOhio said:

There were protesters this morning outside of Kevin Stefanski’s house 

 

Yeah I have friends who are Browns fans who are having serious issues with woman burning her jersey saying she will never wear Browns gear again. They have a pair of tickets and if she goes to game she will wear opposition fan gear.  The male stated that he was not charged but he probably got numbers from ads which were very suggestive and implied something else.

[YoloinOhio]

As a resident of Columbus for 25 years, I’ve never leaned one way or the other toward browns or bengals with any amount of fandom, but more apathy than anything. I’ve been objectively critical of both franchises at times, as they’ve deserved it. But Ive really found myself  leaning toward Cincy in terms of respect. They drafted and developed a QB and are now completely revamping his OL which was the only thing that held them back from a SB title …in his 2nd season!
 

The Browns are trying the Rams/Matt Stafford route because they’ve been unable to draft and develop that type of QB. Except the Rams already had a SB team around Stafford. The Browns don’t. They aren’t a bad roster but they aren’t a complete roster. and they always seem to have culture issues and drama. I doubt this will help.

Edited March 19, 2022 by YoloinOhio

[wppete]

10 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

There were protesters this morning outside of Kevin Stefanski’s house 

Is this true?

[HappyDays]

10 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

You either defend the principle that the courts determine guilt and liability and can be trusted to apply the appropriate penalty or you don't

 

I'm not talking about the legal principles of innocence and guilt. The courts have never decided a person's social status. A court couldn't order Watson to be forever barred from the NFL even if he was found guilty. So if loss of social status is the appropriate penalty for an individual's actions, who in your mind decides that penalty? You're conflating criminal punishment with social punishment. It's not the same thing. Anyways the NFL has their own system of meting out judgment and teams can sign or not sign whoever they want. That system is built on principles that fall entirely outside the realm of criminal or civil law and you're saying we should use the same standards of proof in that system? That's never been the case and it never will be. Employers can fire their employees for sexual harassment even if the proof of sexual harassment does not meet the criminal burden of proof.

[muppy]

24 minutes ago, Logic said:

All this stuff about the legal system….

 

The legal system only decides whether and to what degree a person will face legal repercussions. If what the legal system decides is sufficient to shape some people’s feelings about an accused person, and/or how they react to or support or do not support said person, then fine, that’s their choice.

 

That said, it is also perfectly valid to form an opinion about an accused person based on the cumulative total of allegations and/or evidence at hand. For me, the legal system is not the be-all/end-all arbiter if my reaction to or feeling about an accused person. It is far too deeply flawed to ascribe to it any final say in how I feel about a person alleged to have committed crimes or misconduct.

 

As such, regardless of the grand jury decision about Watson, I still feel — based on the collective weight of the 22 complaints, the similar nature and specificity of those complaints, and the egregiously heinous conduct described therein — that Watson is likely guilty to some degree. At best, he is a person of low moral character, either unaware or uncaring of the ways in which his abuse of power and wealth affected the lives of others. At worst, he is a serial sexual predator and quite possibly a rapist.

 

I find it incredibly unlikely that he is completely innocent.

 

I have very low tolerance and sympathy for serial sex offenders.

 

All of the above leads me to this: I find Watson reprehensible, legal status of his cases be damned, because I believe his accusers. If the Bills traded for him, I’d be finding a new team to root for. It’s that simple for me. I could not cheer for a man like this. I am incredibly disgusted by all angles of it, from the Browns’ willingness to trade for and pay Watson, to the NFL and the media’s handling of it, to obviously Watson’s (alleged) conduct itself. 
 

Welcome, any and all Browns fans who feel the same.

people IMO who have the most money to buy a great defense have a huge advantage in our justice system. . Ask Robert Kraft how much HIS justice cost smh  Our justice system is flawed but I still hold it is better than  any other alternative I know of.  It is not the be all and end all of justice though. Not even close.

Edited March 19, 2022 by muppy

[GunnerBill]

2 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

I'm not talking about the legal principles of innocence and guilt. The courts have never decided a person's social status. A court couldn't order Watson to be forever barred from the NFL even if he was found guilty. So if loss of social status is the appropriate penalty for an individual's actions, who in your mind decides that penalty? You're conflating criminal punishment with social punishment. It's not the same thing. Anyways the NFL has their own system of meting out judgment and teams can sign or not sign whoever they want. That system is built on principles that fall entirely outside the realm of criminal or civil law and you're saying we should use the same standards of proof in that system? That's never been the case and it never will be. Employers can fire their employees for sexual harassment even if the proof of sexual harassment does not meet the criminal burden of proof.

 

I don't think loss of societal status should be a penalty for a person who hasn't been found guilty of an offence. He may yet be found civilly liable, a different test with different factors and a different burden. Then there is the NFL discipline policy which he should certainly be subject to and will, almost definitely and rightly serve a suspension. Employers can fire their employees for allegations of sexual harassment, of course they can. If that employee believes they have been fired unfairly they can then sue. I am not conflating criminal with punishment with societal punishment because in the absence of a finding by the courts on the former I don't support the latter. 

[YoloinOhio]

15 minutes ago, wppete said:

Is this true?

 

[YoloinOhio]

 

[Westside]

5 hours ago, Don Otreply said:

What you have stated in your posts here is the difference between Society trending toward fascism / totalitarian rule and Democratic leadership.

 

     I have a spouse who is a lawyer, and have learned from her a fair bit of how the legal system actually works over the years, and it strikes me from what I hear some folk say that they have no real understanding of how and why the legal system is structured the way it is, for the long and short term greater good of society not just in America but world wide mob rule just can not be the determining factor in deciding guilt or innocence, it just can’t. 
 

Go Bills!!!

Yeah, it should be decided by who can afford the best lawyers. This may or may not be the best legal system in the world, but it definitely has huge loopholes that favors the rich and powerful.

[YoloinOhio]

Former browns RT

 

 

[mabden]

1 hour ago, FireChans said:

He will stay a Browns fans, keep his tickets and cheer for Watson.

 

We will see.

[WhoTom]

3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

Justice is not about emotion. It can't be and shouldn't be. That is why we leave it to the courts not to public opinion. 

 

True, but sports fandom is about emotion, and that was the point of this thread before it got derailed and turned into a discussion about the criminal justice system. Watson won't go to jail because a bunch of Browns fans decided not to support their team over this.