Von Miller faces arrest in domestic violence case in Dallas

[boyst]

28 minutes ago, Mango said:

 

The team can suspend him and I hope they do. No need to have him in the building. 

[PBF81]

58 minutes ago, boyst said:

 

McD?  

 

 

[boyst]

7 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

McD?  

 

 

No. The American way. 

[Beck Water]

5 hours ago, Mango said:

 

The team can suspend him and I hope they do. No need to have him in the building. 

 

I'd like to throw out a thought. 

 

-What Von Miller is alleged to have done is despicable, and if it's beyond a reasonable doubt he did it, he should not be in the building

-At this point, it's not beyond a reasonable doubt.  It's not even clear that the evidence is enough to charge him with a crime

-If he's charged with a crime, for sure, he should not be on the field until the investigation completes.  The NFL has a procedure for this, "Commissioner's Exempt List"

-If he's not, just maybe...the NFL's procedure of waiting to take action until an investigation takes place...is the 'benefit of doubt' standard we would all like to have applied to us?

Crazy Talk, I know.

 

I'm not sure the "team can suspend him".  On what basis at this point?  They can make him inactive, and let him sit on the sideline in civvies, I guess.

 

[2003Contenders]

15 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

I'd like to throw out a thought. 

 

-What Von Miller is alleged to have done is despicable, and if it's beyond a reasonable doubt he did it, he should not be in the building

-At this point, it's not beyond a reasonable doubt.  It's not even clear that the evidence is enough to charge him with a crime

-If he's charged with a crime, for sure, he should not be on the field until the investigation completes.  The NFL has a procedure for this, "Commissioner's Exempt List"

-If he's not, just maybe...the NFL's procedure of waiting to take action until an investigation takes place...is the 'benefit of doubt' standard we would all like to have applied to us?

Crazy Talk, I know.

 

I'm not sure the "team can suspend him".  On what basis at this point?  They can make him inactive, and let him sit on the sideline in civvies, I guess.

 

Agreed.

 

That is why I suspect what the team will do until the smoke settles is "unofficially" place him on paid administrative leave.  That is, the team will say that they realize that he he has more important things in his life to deal with right than football, and allow/urge him to do so.

Edited December 5, 2023 by 2003Contenders

[Mango]

22 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

I'd like to throw out a thought. 

 

-What Von Miller is alleged to have done is despicable, and if it's beyond a reasonable doubt he did it, he should not be in the building

-At this point, it's not beyond a reasonable doubt.  It's not even clear that the evidence is enough to charge him with a crime

-If he's charged with a crime, for sure, he should not be on the field until the investigation completes.  The NFL has a procedure for this, "Commissioner's Exempt List"

-If he's not, just maybe...the NFL's procedure of waiting to take action until an investigation takes place...is the 'benefit of doubt' standard we would all like to have applied to us?

Crazy Talk, I know.

 

I'm not sure the "team can suspend him".  On what basis at this point?  They can make him inactive, and let him sit on the sideline in civvies, I guess.

 

I think you’re over complicating this one.

 

The Bills can certainly send him home with pay while he “sorts this one out” if we want to stay out keep out of that rabbit hole. 
 

You keep saying he hasn’t been charged with anything. But I’m unsure the police can require one to post bail to be released if there is no charge.
 

My tinfoil hat says that the “there is no official charge” rhetoric is coming from Vons team and/or people in the peripheral of the NFL’s C-Suite as they work to make this whole thing go away….as they do. My guess is that the additional layer of this being done in a “no drop” state creates some additional wrinkles. 
 

But again, that all brings me back to the fact that I could not be held with bail without having been charged with a crime.
 

 

Edited December 5, 2023 by Mango
Correction. Send him home with pay.

[Beck Water]

10 minutes ago, 2003Contenders said:

Agreed.

 

That is why I suspect what the team will do until the smoke settles is "unofficially" place him on paid administrative leave.  That is, the team will say that they realize that he he has more important things in his life to deal with right than football, and allow/urge him to do so.

 

I'd like to think I know more than the average Joe Fan about contracts and cap issues and parts of the CBA.

 

I have no idea if there is an avenue for a team "suspending" a player (with or without pay) or placing him on "administrative leave" and locking him out of the building.

 

I actually think there isn't. 

-They can make him inactive. 

-They can cut him (and immediately eat $32M extra dead cap this season)  

-IF he has broken a team rule or they can argue he has been guilty of "conduct detrimental to the team" or "conduct detrimental to the league", maybe they suspend him - but the player can appeal, and then we loop back to the original point, which is - an investigation has not completed, Von Miller has not been charged, and there is no clearcut conclusion here.

 

Do I personally believe that it's "more likely than not" that Von Miller physically and verbally assaulted his pregnant girlfriend and that what he did is a "Red Flag Warning" for DV murder?  Yes, that's what I personally believe.

 

But I don't think someone should be found to have committed "conduct detrimental" based upon my personal belief, either.

[WotAGuy]

“If you or someone you know has been arrested, you might be confused about what that means. Have they been charged with a crime? Is an arrest the same thing as being charged with a crime? 

No, being charged is not the same as being arrested. Being arrested means that the police believe that you likely committed a crime and therefore detain you, so they can determine whether to proceed with an investigation and file charges.

In addition, a person can face criminal charges without being arrested. Although criminal charges usually follow after an arrest, being charged is not the same as being arrested.

The difference between them is very important. One cannot be convicted of a crime if there has been no arrest. This is because one cannot lawfully get punished for breaking the law unless one is first charged with doing so. 

When someone is charged but not yet arrested, it simply means that the authorities have decided to proceed with a case against that person, but they do not yet have the grounds to detain him or her.

When someone is arrested, it does not mean that charges will automatically follow. However, it is fairly likely in a felony crime. Prosecutors will typically bring criminal charges after an arrest for a felony crime because of the severity of these crimes. To obtain a conviction, the prosecution must prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

 

https://www.seattlecriminaldefenselawfirm.com/blog/advice-on-the-emotional-toll-of-a-dui-in-seattle/post/is-being-arrested-the-same-as-being-charged-with-a-crime#:~:text=No%2C being charged is not,criminal charges without being arrested.

Edited December 5, 2023 by WotAGuy

[Returntoglory]

Do we know if Brandon has spoken with VM about this alleged incident?

 

I would hope that he has and that it was a face to face. 

 

 

[Mango]

1 minute ago, WotAGuy said:

“

If you or someone you know has been arrested, you might be confused about what that means. Have they been charged with a crime? Is an arrest the same thing as being charged with a crime? 

No, being charged is not the same as being arrested. Being arrested means that the police believe that you likely committed a crime and therefore detain you, so they can determine whether to proceed with an investigation and file charges.

In addition, a person can face criminal charges without being arrested. Although criminal charges usually follow after an arrest, being charged is not the same as being arrested.

The difference between them is very important. One cannot be convicted of a crime if there has been no arrest. This is because one cannot lawfully get punished for breaking the law unless one is first charged with doing so. 

When someone is charged but not yet arrested, it simply means that the authorities have decided to proceed with a case against that person, but they do not yet have the grounds to detain him or her.

When someone is arrested, it does not mean that charges will automatically follow. However, it is fairly likely in a felony crime. Prosecutors will typically bring criminal charges after an arrest for a felony crime because of the severity of these crimes. To obtain a conviction, the prosecution must prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

 

https://www.seattlecriminaldefenselawfirm.com/blog/advice-on-the-emotional-toll-of-a-dui-in-seattle/post/is-being-arrested-the-same-as-being-charged-with-a-crime#:~:text=No%2C being charged is not,criminal charges without being arrested.

I get all of that. The kicker isn’t the arrest. It’s the bail. Granted I’m just a guy on the internet, but I am not sure you can be released on bail if you aren’t charged with a crime. 

[WotAGuy]

6 minutes ago, Returntoglory said:

Do we know if Brandon has spoken with VM about this alleged incident?

 

I would hope that he has and that it was a face to face. 

 

 

 

Beane: Von, WTF happened?

 

Von:

 

 

4 minutes ago, Mango said:

I get all of that. The kicker isn’t the arrest. It’s the bail. Granted I’m just a guy on the internet, but I am not sure you can be released on bail if you aren’t charged with a crime. 

Bail just lets you go so you don’t have to be incarcerated while they are deciding whether to charge you. 

[Beck Water]

41 minutes ago, Mango said:

I think you’re over complicating this one.

 

Don't think so

 

41 minutes ago, Mango said:

The Bills can certainly send him home with pay while he “sorts this one out” if we want to stay out keep out of that rabbit hole.

 

I actually don't believe they can.  People keep saying all sorts of things the Bills can do, but I'd be delighted to have a precedent or a reference to some portion of the CBA that allows this.  The team can grant a player who requests it time off for "personal reasons" to deal with a family member's health or death.  The thing is, the player has to request it.

 

41 minutes ago, Mango said:

You keep saying he hasn’t been charged with anything. But I’m unsure the police can require one to post bail to be released if there is no charge.

 

This has been dealt with and explained multiple times upthread.  If you've read that and you're still unsure, you can try Quora:

https://www.quora.com/Can-you-get-bail-for-a-crime-that-you-havent-been-formally-charged-with-yet

Quote

Lalit Kumar Mishra

Author has 4.6K answers and 1.1M answer viewsAug 18

Q : Can you get bail for a crime that you haven't been formally charged with yet?

A : A formal charge can only be framed after submission of the charge sheet under Section 173 CrpC. But one may be and most probably will be arrested, if the allegations are serious, during investigation following lodging of the FIR. Once you are arrested you must be produced before the court and are entitled to pray for bail.

So, yes, you can get bail for a crime that you haven't been formally charged with yet.

 

Or as I suggested to Muppy upthread, you could google something like "can I be arrested and not charged with a crime?

 

This seems to be a fairly clear explanation

https://www.conyersnix.com/faq/difference-between-an-arrest-charge-and-conviction/

 

Quote

An arrest is when an individual has been detained by police for suspicion of committing a criminal act.(......)....An arrest is typically a detention of an individual by police officers with probable cause; it is not considered to be either (i) sufficient for charging the person with a crime nor (ii) indicative of guilt on behalf of the arrested party.

 

Quote

After a person is arrested, the police will either issue them a citation and release them or take the person to jail. If a person goes to jail, they will remain in jail until they are released on their own recognizance, released to pretrial services, or released after paying bail.

 

Quote

A charge (or indictment) is an accusation that someone committed a crime that must be proven in court. A charge is not indicative of guilt; you are innocent until proven guilty and the government must prove each and every element of the charge. Police do not file charges against you. Instead, a prosecutor reviews the evidence and determines what charges should be filed against you. Sometimes, a prosecutor will ask police to investigate more before filing charges. Other times, the evidence the police gathered is enough.

 

Trying to TL;DR:

Arrest: Police detain you on suspicion of committing a criminal act.  May or may not be proceeded by prosecutor filing charges; may not involve prosecutor at all

Charges: Filed by prosecutor.  Arrest may or may not follow; could just issue summons to appear in court to answer to charges

 

In Von's case, he was arrested by police upon presenting probable cause to judge.  Prosecutor has not filed charges (yet).

13 minutes ago, Mango said:

I get all of that. The kicker isn’t the arrest. It’s the bail. Granted I’m just a guy on the internet, but I am not sure you can be released on bail if you aren’t charged with a crime. 

 

If you are arrested, you have the right to "pray for bail" (which is not a religious move, but an application to the judge) whether or not you've been charged.  This is an important protection Americans have against the habit in some countries of arresting and incarcerating people for indefinite periods of time without charges.

Edited December 5, 2023 by Beck Water

[Beck Water]

27 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

I'd like to think I know more than the average Joe Fan about contracts and cap issues and parts of the CBA.

 

I have no idea if there is an avenue for a team "suspending" a player (with or without pay) or placing him on "administrative leave" and locking him out of the building.

 

I actually think there isn't. 

-They can make him inactive. 

-They can cut him (and immediately eat $32M extra dead cap this season)  

-IF he has broken a team rule or they can argue he has been guilty of "conduct detrimental to the team" or "conduct detrimental to the league", maybe they suspend him - but the player can appeal, and then we loop back to the original point, which is - an investigation has not completed, Von Miller has not been charged, and there is no clearcut conclusion here.

 

Do I personally believe that it's "more likely than not" that Von Miller physically and verbally assaulted his pregnant girlfriend and that what he did is a "Red Flag Warning" for DV murder?  Yes, that's what I personally believe.

 

But I don't think someone should be found to have committed "conduct detrimental" based upon my personal belief, either.

 

Crass to follow myself I know, but I'd like to point out that with the CBA, the NFLPA was trying to protect players against being placed in "limbo" by a team that has soured on them but for one or another reason doesn't want to cut them.  The player under contract has the right to access the team facility, train there, receive medical treatment. eat team food.  The team can cut them so they're not under contract.  The team can make them inactive on game day. 

 

But contractually, I believe the team must "fish or cut bait", either let the player access the facility or cut them.  Or, if there is good cause, suspend them - but there has to be cause.

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, Beck Water said:

 

I'd like to throw out a thought. 

 

-What Von Miller is alleged to have done is despicable, and if it's beyond a reasonable doubt he did it, he should not be in the building

-At this point, it's not beyond a reasonable doubt.  It's not even clear that the evidence is enough to charge him with a crime

-If he's charged with a crime, for sure, he should not be on the field until the investigation completes.  The NFL has a procedure for this, "Commissioner's Exempt List"

-If he's not, just maybe...the NFL's procedure of waiting to take action until an investigation takes place...is the 'benefit of doubt' standard we would all like to have applied to us?

Crazy Talk, I know.

 

I'm not sure the "team can suspend him".  On what basis at this point?  They can make him inactive, and let him sit on the sideline in civvies, I guess.

 

 

 

Wasn't Miller given this the first time he was investigated for similar episode in 2021?

 

How many bites of that apple does he deserve?

[Herc11]

1 hour ago, Beck Water said:

 

I'd like to throw out a thought. 

 

-What Von Miller is alleged to have done is despicable, and if it's beyond a reasonable doubt he did it, he should not be in the building

-At this point, it's not beyond a reasonable doubt.  It's not even clear that the evidence is enough to charge him with a crime

-If he's charged with a crime, for sure, he should not be on the field until the investigation completes.  The NFL has a procedure for this, "Commissioner's Exempt List"

-If he's not, just maybe...the NFL's procedure of waiting to take action until an investigation takes place...is the 'benefit of doubt' standard we would all like to have applied to us?

Crazy Talk, I know.

 

I'm not sure the "team can suspend him".  On what basis at this point?  They can make him inactive, and let him sit on the sideline in civvies, I guess.

 

Araiza sure wishes this concept applies to him. Unfortunately, the pitchfork community loves to tear people down prematurely.

[EasternOHBillsFan]

3 minutes ago, Herc11 said:

Araiza sure wishes this concept applies to him. Unfortunately, the pitchfork community loves to tear people down prematurely.

 

Ohh great, an Araiza apologist gracing themselves in this long, long thread 🙄

 

Unfortunately the virtue signaling community rears its ugly head also.....

[Beck Water]

6 minutes ago, Herc11 said:

Araiza sure wishes this concept applies to him. Unfortunately, the pitchfork community loves to tear people down prematurely.

 

Araiza was cut by the team.

 

NFL players are "employed at will", the team can cut them at any time (and bear contractual consequences)

 

Araiza was not disciplined or suspended by the team or the NFL.

 

 

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

I don’t have the time to read through 63 pages so forgive me if this has already been mentioned. Seems to me the NFL needs to distinguish between the personal contract between Miller and the Bills and team’s cap mathematics. Put another way, they’ve signed a contract with Von that may guarantee him his money….but his conduct off the field should not handicap the remainder of the roster. 

[RousseauRage]

5 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I don’t have the time to read through 63 pages so forgive me if this has already been mentioned. Seems to me the NFL needs to distinguish between the personal contract between Miller and the Bills and team’s cap mathematics. Put another way, they’ve signed a contract with Von that may guarantee him his money….but his conduct off the field should not handicap the remainder of the roster. 

It's only allegations at this point. Why shouldn't we have to pay one of our players. That's just goofy. If the league suspends him, that's different.

[SoCal Deek]

24 minutes ago, RousseauRage said:

It's only allegations at this point. Why shouldn't we have to pay one of our players. That's just goofy. If the league suspends him, that's different.

Maybe you misunderstood. My point is that if he’s gone through due process, it seems like that would void any impact on the team’s cap. Whereas his individual contract would depend on what the terms of that contract require. 

[Beck Water]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Wasn't Miller given this the first time he was investigated for similar episode in 2021?

 

How many bites of that apple does he deserve?

 

Er....

 

seriously, WEO?

[TheyCallMeAndy]

1 hour ago, Beck Water said:

 

Araiza was cut by the team.

 

NFL players are "employed at will", the team can cut them at any time (and bear contractual consequences)

 

Araiza was not disciplined or suspended by the team or the NFL.

 

 

 

 

He also lied to the club which didn’t help his cause. 

[PlayoffsPlease]

2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

Maybe you misunderstood. My point is that if he’s gone through due process, it seems like that would void any impact on the team’s cap. Whereas his individual contract would depend on what the terms of that contract require. 

I am pretty sure the individual contracts follow a form. The salary cap works the same for all of them. If the contract needs to be paid, the salary cap needs to be respected. You rolls the dice on a guaranteed contract, and you you pays the bank if you crap out. 

3 hours ago, Beck Water said:

 

Araiza was cut by the team.

 

NFL players are "employed at will", the team can cut them at any time (and bear contractual consequences)

 

Araiza was not disciplined or suspended by the team or the NFL.

 

 

 

 

Do you think he is being fairly considered to fill punter roles at this point? Or do you think there is some collusion against him? If not why has he not gotten a second chance?

[John from Riverside]

I just wonder what fans’s opinions would be if he was actually performing

[Punching Bag]

Subject should be updated - he was arrested with claim by victim "No one assaulted anyone,"

 

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/buffalo-bills-nfl-von-miller-faces-arrest-in-dallas-texas-domestic-violence-case/287-2904617b-5d0d-4252-a321-28d8f61807f0

Quote

"We’re fine," she wrote. "Things were blown way out of context. This is actually outrageous!"

 

She called the incident "a huge misunderstanding" and described it as "a verbal disagreement." 

 

"No one assaulted anyone," she texted. "This is insane. And sad."

 

She may choose  to recant what she said to dispatcher. 

 

I knew someone who I worked with who had argument with wife and she made call to 911.  

He had a security clearance and had it suspended which resulted him being suspended rather than fired from threat of lawsuit by laywer.

Wife recanted what she said on 911 saying she was distraught. 

Charges were pursued with comments that wife was under pressure to recant.

Firm hired by laywer's company found a tape showing incident and it was submitted in court.

Charges were dismissed and there was discussion of him filing suit against police department for false charges and failure to make sufficient effort not finding tape.

Prosecutor asked judge to declare him innocent (not just dismissing charges) and jury gave verdict of innocent.

He got his job back (but a different) with pressure from law firm but agency granted security did not reactivate clearance.

Company reapplied for clearance for man and after another investigation of background he finally got it back.

Without that tape he would be likely have been charged guilty.

 

Verbal evidence, even 911 tape evidence, can be wrong. 

Statements can be misinterpreted and written down as fact which is an issue I have had in past. 

 

[Beck Water]

40 minutes ago, PlayoffsPlease said:

Do you think he is being fairly considered to fill punter roles at this point? Or do you think there is some collusion against him? If not why has he not gotten a second chance?

 

With all respect, I really don't want to pull the thread into Araiza discussion Part 326 so I'm not going to respond about him again.

[Punching Bag]

On 12/2/2023 at 10:04 AM, Dubie54 said:

I would think that his contract has a clause in it which allows the Bills to walk away and limit their cap exposure significantly. If not, that’s on the Bills FO. You don’t sign a guy with a checkered history to a deal that big without protection.

 

If Jim Overdorf is involved there will not be a clause.

[Herc11]

4 hours ago, EasternOHBillsFan said:

 

Ohh great, an Araiza apologist gracing themselves in this long, long thread 🙄

 

Unfortunately the virtue signaling community rears its ugly head also.....

Apologist or just speaking facts? 

 

Dude was labeled by people like you, despite the overwhelming lack of evidence and evidence supporting him.

 

Keep your pitchfork mob mentality up, looks good on you.

4 hours ago, Beck Water said:

 

Araiza was cut by the team.

 

NFL players are "employed at will", the team can cut them at any time (and bear contractual consequences)

 

Araiza was not disciplined or suspended by the team or the NFL.

 

 

 

 

Araiza was cut because of the pitchfork mob mentality that doesn't have the capacity to wait for things to be settled. You know, that American concept we pride ourselves on, innocent until proven guilty. 

 

The Bills prematurely took action on him to save face from these people.

 

Him being cut WAS a penalty. The loss of income and career absolutely derailed along with his reputation is quite an injustice.

Edited December 6, 2023 by Herc11

[Dr.Sack]

6 minutes ago, Herc11 said:

Apologist or just speaking facts? 

 

Dude was labeled by people like you, despite the overwhelming lack of evidence and evidence supporting him.

 

Keep your pitchfork mob mentality up, looks good on you.

Araiza was cut because of the pitchfork mob mentality that doesn't have the capacity to wait for things to be settled. You know, that American concept we pride ourselves on, innocent until proven guilty. 

 

The Bills prematurely took action on him to save face from these people

I can give you $100m reasons this will play out differently. I suspect Von plays unless the NFL intervenes. 

[TheyCallMeAndy]

43 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

Subject should be updated - he was arrested with claim by victim "No one assaulted anyone,"

 

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/buffalo-bills-nfl-von-miller-faces-arrest-in-dallas-texas-domestic-violence-case/287-2904617b-5d0d-4252-a321-28d8f61807f0

 

She may choose  to recant what she said to dispatcher. 

 

I knew someone who I worked with who had argument with wife and she made call to 911.  

He had a security clearance and had it suspended which resulted him being suspended rather than fired from threat of lawsuit by laywer.

Wife recanted what she said on 911 saying she was distraught. 

Charges were pursued with comments that wife was under pressure to recant.

Firm hired by laywer's company found a tape showing incident and it was submitted in court.

Charges were dismissed and there was discussion of him filing suit against police department for false charges and failure to make sufficient effort not finding tape.

Prosecutor asked judge to declare him innocent (not just dismissing charges) and jury gave verdict of innocent.

He got his job back (but a different) with pressure from law firm but agency granted security did not reactivate clearance.

Company reapplied for clearance for man and after another investigation of background he finally got it back.

Without that tape he would be likely have been charged guilty.

 

Verbal evidence, even 911 tape evidence, can be wrong. 

Statements can be misinterpreted and written down as fact which is an issue I have had in past. 

 

I just want to point out it’s never been confirmed WHO sent those texts. 
 

There are official, legal documents with the who/what/where/why/when of the original incident.

7 minutes ago, Herc11 said:

Apologist or just speaking facts? 

 

Dude was labeled by people like you, despite the overwhelming lack of evidence and evidence supporting him.

 

Keep your pitchfork mob mentality up, looks good on you.

Araiza was cut because of the pitchfork mob mentality that doesn't have the capacity to wait for things to be settled. You know, that American concept we pride ourselves on, innocent until proven guilty. 

 

The Bills prematurely took action on him to save face from these people

Yes MA was released due to the massive distraction it was causing, some of it his own doing. He lied to the team regarding that night. Your opinion that it was fueled by anything else is just that. 

[yall]

13 hours ago, Beck Water said:

 

Don't think so

 

 

I actually don't believe they can.  People keep saying all sorts of things the Bills can do, but I'd be delighted to have a precedent or a reference to some portion of the CBA that allows this.  The team can grant a player who requests it time off for "personal reasons" to deal with a family member's health or death.  The thing is, the player has to request it.

 

 

This has been dealt with and explained multiple times upthread.  If you've read that and you're still unsure, you can try Quora:

https://www.quora.com/Can-you-get-bail-for-a-crime-that-you-havent-been-formally-charged-with-yet

 

Or as I suggested to Muppy upthread, you could google something like "can I be arrested and not charged with a crime?

 

This seems to be a fairly clear explanation

https://www.conyersnix.com/faq/difference-between-an-arrest-charge-and-conviction/

 

 

 

 

Trying to TL;DR:

Arrest: Police detain you on suspicion of committing a criminal act.  May or may not be proceeded by prosecutor filing charges; may not involve prosecutor at all

Charges: Filed by prosecutor.  Arrest may or may not follow; could just issue summons to appear in court to answer to charges

 

In Von's case, he was arrested by police upon presenting probable cause to judge.  Prosecutor has not filed charges (yet).

 

If you are arrested, you have the right to "pray for bail" (which is not a religious move, but an application to the judge) whether or not you've been charged.  This is an important protection Americans have against the habit in some countries of arresting and incarcerating people for indefinite periods of time without charges.

Teams can absolutely and sometimes do suspend players. Violation of team rules, violation of social media policy etc. there's precedent and it's been done before.

 

It needn't only come from the league. 

[SoonerBillsFan]

13 hours ago, Beck Water said:

 

Araiza was cut by the team.

 

NFL players are "employed at will", the team can cut them at any time (and bear contractual consequences)

 

Araiza was not disciplined or suspended by the team or the NFL.

 

 

 

 

And Terry needs to cut Von and make a statement.

[Mr. WEO]

12 hours ago, Beck Water said:

 

Er....

 

seriously, WEO?

 

seriously.  I'm not the only one asking.  

 

 

[jaab1028]

I don't think the crowd at Arrowhead will be receptive to Von Miller taking the field Sunday.Take him off the roster and be done with him.Let him pursue his dream of being a GM in the NFL,lol

[SoCal Deek]

12 hours ago, PlayoffsPlease said:

I am pretty sure the individual contracts follow a form. The salary cap works the same for all of them. If the contract needs to be paid, the salary cap needs to be respected. You rolls the dice on a guaranteed contract, and you you pays the bank if you crap out. 

Do you think he is being fairly considered to fill punter roles at this point? Or do you think there is some collusion against him? If not why has he not gotten a second chance?

I obviously disagree. Other players, either current or future, shouldn’t have their wages reduced because a guy who used to be on your team did something that was completely unrelated to football. That is not what the salary cap is there for. 

[BuffaloBillyG]

14 minutes ago, jaab1028 said:

I don't think the crowd at Arrowhead will be receptive to Von Miller taking the field Sunday.Take him off the roster and be done with him.Let him pursue his dream of being a GM in the NFL,lol

Yes, because the players that play at and the fans that cheer at Arrowhead are the beacon of good moral fiber.

[WotAGuy]

19 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I obviously disagree. Other players, either current or future, shouldn’t have their wages reduced because a guy who used to be on your team did something that was completely unrelated to football. That is not what the salary cap is there for. 

How would it reduce wages of other people?  
 

These are the risks of guaranteed contracts and I imagine the owners will fight against your position because it just means they will be paying more in the long run. 

[Bobby Hooks]

Do you think this hurts his chances of being the next GM of the Buffalo Bills? 

[boyst]

2 minutes ago, Bobby Hooks said:

Do you think this hurts his chances of being the next GM of the Buffalo Bills? 

it won't phase his HOF election 1 bit, as far as being a GM we have to see how he handles himself in the public eye the next 5-10 years.

[SoCal Deek]

25 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:

How would it reduce wages of other people?  
 

These are the risks of guaranteed contracts and I imagine the owners will fight against your position because it just means they will be paying more in the long run. 

Simple. If you have a guy taking money out of the cap, that means other players can’t earn that money. That’s what a CAP is.