Judge Sue Robinson recommends 6 game suspension for Watson; NFL will appeal

[Buffalo_Stampede]

2 minutes ago, Scott7975 said:

 

Why would you hope she found a scumbag innocent?

 

Do you not understand that civil court and criminal court have two different standards?

It’s not difficult to get an indictment especially with dozens of strangers with similar accusations. They probably all settle at the end of the day but he definitely should’ve been formally charged.

 

The whole thing is sickening.

[Scott7975]

3 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

It’s not difficult to get an indictment especially with dozens of strangers with similar accusations. They probably all settle at the end of the day but he definitely should’ve been formally charged.

 

The whole thing is sickening.

 

People dont get indicted often based on he said she said.  Sexual misconduct cases are probably some of the toughest to prosecute.  Most woman dont even bother because they end up being dragged through the mud in court. 

 

Ive seen your comments throughout the threads and the way you write seems to indicate that you want to believe Watson did nothing wrong but try to hide that because you are afraid of what people will think of you.  Thats honestly what I get from all your posts.  Such as the one above where you say "  I was hoping the arbitrator would look at the evidence and say she didn’t see any evidence of sexual misconduct."

 

Why would you say that?  Why would you hope the arbitrator found he did nothing wrong?

Edited August 2, 2022 by Scott7975

[Buffalo_Stampede]

2 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

The precedent was Roethisberger, by rights Watson should have gotten 300+ games.

And the judge should understand that times are different. She actually makes a case that public pressure is the reason why the NFL wanted a year. Honestly it sounded like she was talking about cancel culture.

 

She picked a terrible time to make a point about cancel culture. She had an opportunity to set her own precedent. This is a new system. She reviewed the evidence and felt Watson did it all, to multiple women. She failed.

1 minute ago, Scott7975 said:

 

People dont get indicted often based on he said she said.  Sexual misconduct cases are probably some of the toughest to prosecute.  Most woman dont even bother because they end up being dragged through the mud in court. 

In this case there dozens of accusations. All similar. It was a slam dunk indictment.

[Scott7975]

2 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

And the judge should understand that times are different. She actually makes a case that public pressure is the reason why the NFL wanted a year. Honestly it sounded like she was talking about cancel culture.

 

She picked a terrible time to make a point about cancel culture. She had an opportunity to set her own precedent. This is a new system. She reviewed the evidence and felt Watson did it all, to multiple women. She failed.

In this case there dozens of accusations. All similar. It was a slam dunk indictment.

 

Dozens of he said she said doesnt turn into a smoking gun in criminal court.  Those courts work and convict on evidence.  Word of mouth is not evidence.

[Warcodered]

1 minute ago, Scott7975 said:

 

Dozens of he said she said doesnt turn into a smoking gun in criminal court.  Those courts work and convict on evidence.  Word of mouth is not evidence.

This wasn't a criminal court.

[GunnerBill]

20 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

I hope he does double it. No idea about legal reasoning, but I suspect that is closer to what the majority of people believe is merited by his actions insofar as it applies to his NFL career.

 

I agree. But, and I know I am a fundamentalist about this, the law is no place for emotion. You establish a process with a judge involved you should expect cold hearted, dispassionate, application of legal principle and precedent. Because that is their job. 

 

Goodell can still intervene and I think he will. But this is HIS process that he and his client journalists lauded as a great new dawn for NFL discipline. 

[Scott7975]

1 minute ago, Warcodered said:

This wasn't a criminal court.

He is talking about not understanding why Watson didnt get indicted... which would be criminal.

[Buffalo_Stampede]

Just now, Scott7975 said:

 

Dozens of he said she said doesnt turn into a smoking gun in criminal court.  Those courts work and convict on evidence.  Word of mouth is not evidence.

Come on man. If you had 20 accusations of sexual assault where would you be right now?

 

 

[Scott7975]

4 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Come on man. If you had 20 accusations of sexual assault where would you be right now?

 

 

 

Probably committing suicide for being a scumbag.  People dont get criminal convictions based off accusations.  Some dont even get convicted when there is proof.  Woman get dragged through the mud... oh she was drunk and partying and first acted like she wanted it.  Why dont you look up how many rapes actually happen, which is more severe than what Watson did, versus how many of the rapists actually go to jail.

 

Im not saying any of this is right.  It isn't.  But its the way the world works.  People dont go to jail based on he said she said. At least not mostly.  If they did then there would also be innocent people flooding jail cells because there are other types of scumbags out there too.

Edited August 2, 2022 by Scott7975

[Warcodered]

2 minutes ago, Scott7975 said:

He is talking about not understanding why Watson didnt get indicted... which would be criminal.

Okay yeah that makes sense. With how easy people say it is for a DA to get an indictment from a grand jury I do wonder if they were aiming for a middle ground or something. Taking it to the grand jury to show they weren't being lenient to a pro athlete, but not actually wanting it to go to trial.

[YoloinOhio]

Ew.

[Scott7975]

1 minute ago, Warcodered said:

Okay yeah that makes sense. With how easy people say it is for a DA to get an indictment from a grand jury I do wonder if they were aiming for a middle ground or something. Taking it to the grand jury to show they weren't being lenient to a pro athlete, but not actually wanting it to go to trial.

 

The whole thing is disgusting to me.  A lot of disgusting things get swept under the rug in this world.  People move on and forget.  Some people are powerful enough to even get government assistance.  The government themselves are scummy.  Its just the way the world works.

 

Like just this instance... Watson is bad PR for the NFL right now.  At the end of the day is that bad PR really going to matter?  Nope because people will still want to watch football and they aren't going to lose any money.  If that were not the case then Watson would probably never see the football field again and have his entire contract ripped up.  Thats the truth of the world.

[Buffalo_Stampede]

2 minutes ago, Scott7975 said:

 

Probably committing suicide for being a scumbag.  People dont get criminal convictions based off accusations.  Some dont even get convicted when there is proof.  Woman get dragged through the mud... oh she was drunk and partying and first acted like she wanted it.  Why dont you look up how many rapes actually happen, which is more severe than what Watson did, versus how many of the rapists actually go to jail.

 

Im not saying any of this is right.  It isn't.  But its the way the world works.  People dont go to jail based on he said she said. At least not mostly.  If they did then there would also be innocent people flooding jail cells because there are other types of scumbags out there too.

I get what you’re saying. The whole point is the number of women. I read quotes from a prosecutor somewhere saying the similarities between each accusation should’ve made it a slam dunk indictment.

 

The women is the evidence. 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

 

[Scott7975]

Just now, Buffalo_Stampede said:

I get what you’re saying. The whole point is the number of women. I read quotes from a prosecutor somewhere saying the similarities between each accusation should’ve made it a slam dunk indictment.

 

The women is the evidence. 

 

It may seem that way but its still not the way things work.  This is the way civil cases work.  

 

Criminal court = beyond any reasonable doubt

Civil court = is it more likely than not

 

That might not seem like a big difference but the difference is huge.

[Buffalo_Stampede]

Just now, Scott7975 said:

 

It may seem that way but its still not the way things work.  This is the way civil cases work.  

 

Criminal court = beyond any reasonable doubt

Civil court = is it more likely than not

 

That might not seem like a big difference but the difference is huge.

I know that. 
 

Indictment and conviction are also vey different.

[Scott7975]

Just now, Buffalo_Stampede said:

I know that. 
 

Indictment and conviction are also vey different.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/2022/04/why-wasnt-deshaun-watson-charged-what-prosecutors-needed-to-file-charges.html

 

I mean, I am not going to sit here and go in circles with you all day.  

[K-9]

12 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

 

Not surprised in the least. Robinson’s own language in her ruling defies the lenient penalty she issued. She gave Goodell a hammer.

[JoPoy88]

32 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

Ew.

geez. Not the headline i’d have gone with.

[Mr. WEO]

Her reasoning is incredibly dumb:

 

 “NFL is attempting to impose a more dramatic shift in its culture without the benefit of fair notice to – and consistency of consequence – for those in the NFL subject to the Policy. While it may be entirely appropriate to more severely discipline players for non-violent sexual conduct, I do not believe it is appropriate to do so without notice of the extraordinary change this position portends for the NFL and its players.”

 

How on earth is the NFL supposed to anticipate every way in which its players can potentially and serially abuse others, so that they can't print out a suspension schedule for this or that?  She states his abuse was unprecedented in NFL annals,.....yet says he only gets the 6 gamer because, you know, he didn't know he might suspended for more.

 

She accuses the NFL of changing its culture....without fair notice!!!

 

 

 

 

 

8 minutes ago, JoPoy88 said:

geez. Not the headline i’d have gone with.

 

 

Come on---that team went 2 full seasons with only one victory!

 

These scumbag Haslams will take this W

[Buffalo_Stampede]

19 minutes ago, Scott7975 said:

 

https://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/2022/04/why-wasnt-deshaun-watson-charged-what-prosecutors-needed-to-file-charges.html

 

I mean, I am not going to sit here and go in circles with you all day.  

This doesn’t say anything new. We already know all of this.
 

 

[Mr. WEO]

Interesting that the NFL drops the hammer on an owner just as they are contemplating an appeal off the Watson suspension.

 

This one isn't hard to figure out.  NFL is the entity playing 5D chess.....

[Scott7975]

15 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

This doesn’t say anything new. We already know all of this.
 

 

 

And its all you are ever going to know.  Texas law prohibits discussing indictments.  People aren't going to go to jail just to explain to you why Watson wasn't indicted for what would be a handful of misdemeanors.

[NoSaint]

13 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Her reasoning is incredibly dumb:

 

 “NFL is attempting to impose a more dramatic shift in its culture without the benefit of fair notice to – and consistency of consequence – for those in the NFL subject to the Policy. While it may be entirely appropriate to more severely discipline players for non-violent sexual conduct, I do not believe it is appropriate to do so without notice of the extraordinary change this position portends for the NFL and its players.”

 

How on earth is the NFL supposed to anticipate every way in which its players can potentially and serially abuse others, so that they can't print out a suspension schedule for this or that?  She states his abuse was unprecedented in NFL annals,.....yet says he only gets the 6 gamer because, you know, he didn't know he might suspended for more.

 

She accuses the NFL of changing its culture....without fair notice!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Come on---that team went 2 full seasons with only one victory!

 

These scumbag Haslams will take this W

 

I hate to continually have to disclaimer that I’m not supporting Watson - but I’m not with the following statement…

 

her stance wasn’t that this was some novel case. It was a non violent sexual assault. The nfl presented 5 incidents, and 1 was removed. There’s been some parameters over non violent sexual assault punishment. The uniqueness of his case being a volume of 4 incidents. 

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, NoSaint said:

 

I hate to continually have to disclaimer that I’m not supporting Watson - but I’m not with the following statement…

 

her stance wasn’t that this was some novel case. It was a non violent sexual assault. The nfl presented 5 incidents, and 1 was removed. There’s been some parameters over non violent sexual assault punishment. The uniqueness of his case being a volume of 4 incidents. 

Her definition of nonviolent is laughable.

[Mr. WEO]

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

Her definition of nonviolent is laughable.

Her role was to set a ridiculously low suspension (the idiotic reasoning makes her performance a bit less authentic) so that the NFL can come with the righteous thunder of “this will not stand!”…

 

Everyone is playing their part.  

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 hour ago, YoloinOhio said:

Ew.

Right? All the wrong people coming out ahead on this.

[Mr. WEO]

9 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

 

I hate to continually have to disclaimer that I’m not supporting Watson - but I’m not with the following statement…

 

her stance wasn’t that this was some novel case. It was a non violent sexual assault. The nfl presented 5 incidents, and 1 was removed. There’s been some parameters over non violent sexual assault punishment. The uniqueness of his case being a volume of 4 incidents. 

She absolutely described it as novel—in fact she said “his pattern of conduct is more egregious than ever before reviewed by the NFL”. 
 

Clearly she is also acknowledging more than 4 cases. 

[GoBills808]

25 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Her role was to set a ridiculously low suspension (the idiotic reasoning makes her performance a bit less authentic) so that the NFL can come with the righteous thunder of “this will not stand!”…

 

Everyone is playing their part.  

The only thing less surprising than the NFL sabotaging itself by appointing a patent attorney to arbitrate one of the more high profile sex assault cases in recent memory is TSWers trying to defend the subsequent ruling.

[cle23]

54 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

The only thing less surprising than the NFL sabotaging itself by appointing a patent attorney to arbitrate one of the more high profile sex assault cases in recent memory is TSWers trying to defend the subsequent ruling.

 

They didn't appoint her to THIS case.  They jointly appointed her to rule over all cases of the PCP.  Just so happens this is the first one to come up.

[NoSaint]

55 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

The only thing less surprising than the NFL sabotaging itself by appointing a patent attorney to arbitrate one of the more high profile sex assault cases in recent memory is TSWers trying to defend the subsequent ruling.

Yes, because the group here is far more savvy at employment law (remember, this is an employment law case)

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

She absolutely described it as novel—in fact she said “his pattern of conduct is more egregious than ever before reviewed by the NFL”. 
 

Clearly she is also acknowledging more than 4 cases. 

She expressly said in the decision that she was only considering the 4 cases. But even those 4 cases make it egregious. 

[97bills]

On 8/1/2022 at 7:29 AM, YoloinOhio said:

 

Guy is going to make 45 million this year, and it might be two years since he’s played a game. 🤔

[GoBills808]

14 minutes ago, 97bills said:

Guy is going to make 45 million this year, and it might be two years since he’s played a game. 🤔

Yeah but it's the Browns, I'm sure they have a plan.

[Gunvald's Husse]

I think that there really is only one appropriate punishment in such a case, and that is to cut off his goolies 

 

 

On a serious note though, my real concern with the Judge's decision is this mythical "non-violent sexual assault" concept she has come up with. I mean, WTF does that even mean?

[Doc Brown]

20 minutes ago, Gunvald's Husse said:

On a serious note though, my real concern with the Judge's decision is this mythical "non-violent sexual assault" concept she has come up with. I mean, WTF does that even mean?

My guess is the judge believes there's a distinction between “violent” sexual assault (cases where there is physical force or a direct threat of violence) and “non-violent” sexual assault (cases involving manipulation or coercion).  Most state laws don't make that distinction (it's all just "sexual assault") so it puzzles me too.  Assault is still in the ruling so Goodell can simply say any kind of sexual assault is reprehensible and damages the shield to justify extending Watson's suspension.  Honestly, Robinson left Goodell with enough meat in her decision where he could easily justify a full year ban.  I don't think he will but he could.

[Gunvald's Husse]

2 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

My guess is the judge believes there's a distinction between “violent” sexual assault (cases where there is physical force or a direct threat of violence) and “non-violent” sexual assault (cases involving manipulation or coercion).  Most state laws don't make that distinction (it's all just "sexual assault") so it puzzles me too.  Assault is still in the ruling so Goodell can simply say any kind of sexual assault is reprehensible and damages the shield to justify extending Watson's suspension.  Honestly, Robinson left Goodell with enough meat in her decision where he could easily justify a full year ban.  I don't think he will but he could.

That would be my guess but I am still wondering how (and why, although the way mhy be that she had to find a reason for the - frankly ridiculous IMO - 6-game ban after she hammered him in her findings fo fact) she came up with it. As you say, legally "sexual assault" doesn't actually need violence (no assault does, if there is actual violence then in is "battery"). Investigating sexual assaults (these days in a non-criminal context) is part of my day job and I have never come across such a distinction, even from review panels without the legal background that, presumably, this judge has. 

[machine gun kelly]

3 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

My guess is the judge believes there's a distinction between “violent” sexual assault (cases where there is physical force or a direct threat of violence) and “non-violent” sexual assault (cases involving manipulation or coercion).  Most state laws don't make that distinction (it's all just "sexual assault") so it puzzles me too.  Assault is still in the ruling so Goodell can simply say any kind of sexual assault is reprehensible and damages the shield to justify extending Watson's suspension.  Honestly, Robinson left Goodell with enough meat in her decision where he could easily justify a full year ban.  I don't think he will but he could.

I wouldn’t doubt it.  At the very least I can see him doubling to 12 games.  He gets to look tough, and showing disdain for his behavior.  The PA can threaten all they want about a lawsuit, but the CBA clearly allows Goodell to have the final say.

 

You know darn well the NFL attorneys are working overtime to Assess how to proceed.

[BarleyNY]

14 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Honestly this is the worst outcome. I was hoping the arbitrator would look at the evidence and say she didn’t see any evidence of sexual misconduct. Instead she believes it happened but in a non violent way.

 

I don’t care about the suspension, how did he avoid indictment. 

Standard of evidence.  Criminal conviction requires the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”.  The standard of “Preponderance of evidence” that was used here is >50%. 

[Mr. WEO]

11 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

The only thing less surprising than the NFL sabotaging itself by appointing a patent attorney to arbitrate one of the more high profile sex assault cases in recent memory is TSWers trying to defend the subsequent ruling.

 

They could have appointed Slippin Jimmy as their arbitrator, wouldn't matter.  She is playing a role in this staged drama and she delivered the performance that was scripted for her:  take a headline making case all summer and hear the evidence, take an inordinately long time to come up with the laughably low suspension to produce the necessary (and predicted) public outcry for the NFL to step in and bump it up to where they wanted it---all the while promoting this as a "new" and "improved" system of justice for the players and NFLPA, exactly as bargained for in the last CBA.