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. 

 

 

[bobobonators]

Some of the narratives im reading in these forums and arguments being made are so misinformed i dont even know where to begin. Its not the job of posters on this board to correct ignorance. Its a shame some of you vote. 
 

Making comparisons between OJ being acquitted and this are like comparing astronauts landing on the moon to what Bezos did months ago. 
 

The standard of proof to indict compared to that required to convict someone in trial are vastly different.
 

The fact that Watson wasnt indicted on any charges is much more telling and compelling of his “innocence” than OJ being found not guilty in trial.
 

Indictments are a dime a dozen. But the court of public opinion has spoken. The same court that has participated in the massive dumpster fire this planet is becoming. 

[boyst]

53 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

Former browns RT

 

 

Bwahaha. What a f'n idiot. Indictments don't mean anything? In the legal world it is said over and over again you can indict a ham sandwich.

 

Literally the process: district attorney goes in front of a grand jury. Presents his side of the case and all his evidence. Only the prosecutor gets to say anything else. No one else is there. And the GJ decides if enough is there that there could be a case. The whole "there there" term is relevant.  The state doesn't have to prove anything just state the hypothetical based on all evidence: could there have been a crime based on all of this evidence?

 

This knuckle dragging cro mag player needs to stick to bashing his head against others and leave the American legal system to others who comprehend it.

Edited March 19, 2022 by Boyst62

[BillsShredder83]

For their sake I hope they can make it work. It's hard to get yourself to identify with a team you have no connection to, but dropping one you already do on top, has gotta be hard.

I started watching more and more college ball the last 3years, and really been hoping a team would kinda find me... and I just haven't been able to make it happen. 

Can't choose who you love kinda thing.

I'd like to think I could just drop buffalo if we did something similar, but I don't think it's a light switch you can just decide to flick on and off 🤷‍♂️

[Perry Turtle]

7 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

Bwahaha. What a f'n idiot. Indictments don't mean anything? In the legal world it is said over and over again you can indict a ham sandwich.

 

Literally the process: district attorney goes in front of a grand jury. Presents his side of the case and all his evidence. Only the prosecutor gets to say anything else. No one else is there. And the GJ decides if enough is there that there could be a case. The whole "there there" term is relevant.  The state doesn't have to prove anything just state the hypothetical based on all evidence: could there have been a crime based on all of this evidence?

 

This knuckle dragging cro mag player needs to stick to bashing his head against others and leave the American legal system to others who comprehend it.

Depends on the motivation of the DA.  Is the DA willing to press a case against a wealthy, famous public figure?  DA is an elected position.  Does the DA press a case against a popular suspect if the DA believes it will impact his chance to get re-elected.  Bill Cosby and Jeffrey Epstein avoided indictment for years because of under-motivated DAs.

 

Anyway, the structure of the Watson's contract shows the the Browns are perfectly fine with Watson even if he is guilty of sexual assault.

 

They've protected him if he gets suspended this year by agreeing to pay him only one million dollars this season, and guaranteed his contract so he can pay off all his current (and future) victims.

 

So the Browns might or might not have brought a sexual predator into the Cleveland area, but even if proves out that they did, they appear perfectly fine with it.

 

[LeGOATski]

I might drop the Bills, but I wouldn't start rooting for another team. It's Bills or nothing.

 

This is an NFL thing as much as it is a Browns thing. They need to do what's good for the league.

[Magnum Force]

I feel bad for a lot of Browns’ fans… I was reading one of their forums and many are struggling with this trade beyond football.  

[Process]

It's one thing to trade for him. 

 

But giving a guy facing 22 civil lawsuits and a definite suspension, who hasn't played in a year, a pay raise and a FULLY GUARANTEED $250M contract is absolute insanity.

[The Wiz]

13 minutes ago, Process said:

It's one thing to trade for him. 

 

But giving a guy facing 22 civil lawsuits and a definite suspension, who hasn't played in a year, a pay raise and a FULLY GUARANTEED $250M contract is absolute insanity.

I don't know about that.  I mean, it's not like he was doing something worse, like gambling.  Stay classy NFL. 🙄

[wppete]

1 hour ago, YoloinOhio said:

Former browns RT

 

 

I don’t get it, what does this mean? 

[Don Otreply]

1 hour ago, Westside said:

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.

It’s Better that than a generally misinformed mob…., no one said human endeavors were perfect…., 

[jkeerie]

55 minutes ago, BillsShredder83 said:

For their sake I hope they can make it work. It's hard to get yourself to identify with a team you have no connection to, but dropping one you already do on top, has gotta be hard.

I started watching more and more college ball the last 3years, and really been hoping a team would kinda find me... and I just haven't been able to make it happen. 

Can't choose who you love kinda thing.

I'd like to think I could just drop buffalo if we did something similar, but I don't think it's a light switch you can just decide to flick on and off 🤷‍♂️

I love the Bills but I actually prefer college ball.  I have 4 teams (alma maters and Air Force) that I follow and root for.  I like to find close, compelling back and forth games though.  If the game goes into OT, it's a bonus.

[Warcodered]

The Exodus continues.

 

17 minutes ago, Hebert19 said:

 

[longtimebillsfan]

5 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

They are entitled to think whatever they like and take whatever decisions they wish with their own money, I said that right back at the start. I understand the way they feel but the presumption applies to society not just to a court. The legal default whether people like it or not is that he is innocent. 

The court of public opinion has never been innocent until proven guilty.  In case you haven't noticed,  people can be a tad judgemental.

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, longtimebillsfan said:

The court of public opinion has never been innocent until proven guilty.  In case you haven't noticed,  people can be a tad judgemental.

 

I accept it has never been that way but social media has made it 10 times worse.

[GoBills808]

3 minutes ago, longtimebillsfan said:

The court of public opinion has never been innocent until proven guilty.  In case you haven't noticed,  people can be a tad judgemental.

You realize the basis of a jury trial in the US legal system is a jurist of exactly the kind of ‘person’ to whom you refer.

[Buffalo Barbarian]

15 hours ago, Utah John said:

Cleveland is desperate, that's the only way to look at this.  They had the overall #1 and got a QB that deserved to be a Day 2 pick.  They now give up three MORE 1st rounders to get a QB.  At the same time they're having trouble holding on to the talent they already assembled.  They still have Myles Garrett, two great RBs, and have traded for an aging Amari Cooper.  But not having 1st rounders is a killer in a salary cap era, where the key to success is drafting good players who are cheap for the first four or five years.  Watson is an excellent QB but the team is eating its seed corn now and will starve later.

 

Plus they're in a division with Burrow and Lamar Jackson.  And Trubisky who is a lot better than Chicago made him look.  Success this year for Cleveland is NOT guaranteed, and their future looks doubtful.

 

Desperation makes people and teams do very doubtful things.  

 

Would love Myles Garrett on this team. (So would he 😅)

 

 

[longtimebillsfan]

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

You realize the basis of a jury trial in the US legal system is a jurist of exactly the kind of ‘person’ to whom you refer.

Just stating reality.  Sitting on a jury vs expressing opinions on the disappointing behavior of professional athletes carries way different responsibilities.  Apples and oranges.

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, longtimebillsfan said:

Just stating reality.  Sitting on a jury vs expressing opinions on the disappointing behavior of professional athletes carries way different responsibilities.  Apples and oranges.

You have a different obligation yes, but my point was that there exists no fundamental difference between the two in terms of the composition. It’s still the same people just with different responsibilities.

[longtimebillsfan]

7 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

You have a different obligation yes, but my point was that there exists no fundamental difference between the two in terms of the composition. It’s still the same people just with different responsibilities.

For jury duty, people will hopefully put aside their bias.  As a fan that does not usually happen.

[boyst]

1 hour ago, Perry Turtle said:

Depends on the motivation of the DA.  Is the DA willing to press a case against a wealthy, famous public figure?  DA is an elected position.  Does the DA press a case against a popular suspect if the DA believes it will impact his chance to get re-elected.  Bill Cosby and Jeffrey Epstein avoided indictment for years because of under-motivated DAs.

 

Anyway, the structure of the Watson's contract shows the the Browns are perfectly fine with Watson even if he is guilty of sexual assault.

 

They've protected him if he gets suspended this year by agreeing to pay him only one million dollars this season, and guaranteed his contract so he can pay off all his current (and future) victims.

 

So the Browns might or might not have brought a sexual predator into the Cleveland area, but even if proves out that they did, they appear perfectly fine with it.

 

Sex crimes for a DA are a slam dunk.  Watson wore his welcome out there, too. Watson wasn't Epstein.

 

The court system trucks anyone on sex crime stuff.