Tyreek Hill Under Investigation For Alleged Battery

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
This is correct and is what is the problem. They have carte blanche when it comes to discipline. Zeke was innocent in the eyes of the law, yet given a six game suspension with very little evidence to support him being guilty. Hill had some fairly damning evidence against him and he gets nothing. Somehow, LT thinks one case is independent of each other, I guess. I can’t otherwise explain why he is saying stupid stuff like “Well, he wasn’t proven innocent so he should be seen as guilty in the eyes of the NFL.”
That quote it totally incorrect. I did not say what you wrote. I said he was found neither guilty or innocent the case was dropped. The ruling was never that he was innocent. It was simply dropped. I also sai the NFL had a right to investigate the matter.

And It not the same as the example you are using with the Mueller report. Mueller stated that there was not sufficient evidence to indict but he also said it was not readily evident that he didn’t commit a crime therefore he would leave that allegation for someone else to rule on. The Attorney General ruled on that part the allegation as not being sufficient to indict and therefore the Mueller report was concluded The only thing the report was conclusive about was collusion but the report didn’t exonerate Trump from the second charge the Attorneys Generals decision did.

One instance was dropped and the other instance was formally concluded.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,695
That quote it totally incorrect. I did not say what you wrote. I said he was found neither guilty or innocent the case was dropped. The ruling was never that he was innocent. It was simply dropped. I also sai the NFL had a right to investigate the matter.

And It not the same as the example you are using with the Mueller report. Mueller stated that there was not sufficient evidence to indict but he also said it was not readily evident that he didn’t commit a crime therefore he would leave that allegation for someone else to rule on. The Attorney General ruled on that part the allegation as not being sufficient to indict and therefore the Mueller report was concluded The only thing the report was conclusive about was collusion but the report didn’t exonerate Trump from the second charge the Attorneys Generals decision did.

One instance was dropped and the other instance was formally concluded.
So, if some woman claimed I beat her and the cops came out and decided they didn’t have enough reason to arrest me because she had no marks, am I innocent or guilty in the eyes of the law? Please just straight up answer the question as it is presented.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
So, if some woman claimed I beat her and the cops came out and decided they didn’t have enough reason to arrest me because she had no marks, am I innocent or guilty in the eyes of the law? Please just straight up answer the question as it is presented.
I see no reason to answer the question since I have no contention about Elliots Investigation by the authorities one way or another. Nor is there enough information in your statement to determine quilt or innocence. And finally investigations, prosecutors, defense lawyers, judges and juries plus a trial are generally necessary to make a determination of guilt or innocence. What is is that you you are driving at with this question?
 

data

Forbes #1
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
50,293
In other words, LT Fan is saying you can’t call a team a winner or loser if the game hasn’t been played.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,695
I see no reason to answer the question since I have no contention about Elliots Investigation by the authorities one way or another. Nor is there enough information in your statement to determine quilt or innocence. And finally investigations, prosecutors, defense lawyers, judges and juries plus a trial are generally necessary to make a determination of guilt or innocence. What is is that you you are driving at with this question?
Innocent until proven guilty.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,453
I see no reason to answer the question since I have no contention about Elliots Investigation by the authorities one way or another. Nor is there enough information in your statement to determine quilt or innocence. And finally investigations, prosecutors, defense lawyers, judges and juries plus a trial are generally necessary to make a determination of guilt or innocence. What is is that you you are driving at with this question?
Would you stop already. A jury does not determine you're innocent. They determine that there isn't evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that you're guilty.

You're just not getting it.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Would you stop already. A jury does not determine you're innocent. They determine that there isn't evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that you're guilty.

You're just not getting it.
I said to makes a “””determination ““of guilt or innocence and that is what happens as a practical matter even though you are using a technicality to correct me. The law then declares it is a not guilty verdict. And why is this point an aggravation to you?
I haven’t given much commentary to try to show someone is innocent and what makes it so.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,453
I said to makes a “””determination ““of guilt or innocence and that is what happens as a practical matter even though you are using a technicality to correct me. The law then declares it is a not guilty verdict. And why is this point an aggravation to you?
I haven’t given much commentary to try to show someone is innocent and what makes it so.
The prosecutor in Zeke's case made that determination. That's the point. Because there was even less evidence of wrong doing then a case that makes it to trial.

It's why the term innocent until proven guilty exists. You just have no idea how criminal law works.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
The prosecutor in Zeke's case made that determination. That's the point. Because there was even less evidence of wrong doing then a case that makes it to trial.
What does that change or have to do with the NFL investigation? They pursued their own and the end result was a suspension. The prosecutors findings then were pretty much buried by the N F L ‘s determinations. So its really a moot point presently. Unless Elliot brings an action or the dropped case gets activated.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Of course it did because 1 of the 2 is the commissioner.
Get on his case then. I am just commenting on what happened. As previously stated, I don’t have a dog in the hunt so what the initial investigation did and why they dropped the case is of no consequence to me. The NFL utilized their own resources and came up with their own findings the issued a suspension. That is a matter of fact and to date has not been not been challenged. So it’s over and will probably stay that way. There has been some back and forth about some technicalities but as a practical matter those points haven’t changed anything.
 

jsmith6919

Honored Member - RIP
Joined
Aug 26, 2013
Messages
28,407
The NFL utilized their own resources and came up with their own findings then ignored them and issued a suspension anyway.
FIFY
 

boozeman

28 Years And Counting...
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
121,730
Well, Seahawks DT Jarran Reed just got popped for six games for something he was neither arrested for or charged with. Just crazy.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,468
Well, Seahawks DT Jarran Reed just got popped for six games for something he was neither arrested for or charged with. Just crazy.
I'll reiterate what I said earlier, they should not be doing this. They are not qualified.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,453
It wasn’t me that said it had anything to do with the Criminal justice system. Others were making that contention in that they closed the case therefore he was innocent.
What I'm saying is that from a legal perspective the person who they don't have probable cause to charge with anything is actually more innocent (Technically they are all innocent but I'm trying to show you the difference) then the person who goes to trial and is found not guilty. They are both not guilty in the laws eyes but a person who makes it all the way to trial at least has enough evidence against him to prove probable cause. If the prosecutor doesn't charge someone it's because they don't even have enough evidence to prove the probable cause to charge the person in the first place.

It's like the league suspending you for a murder that you were never charged with but determining that they can't suspend OJ Simpson because a Jury found him not guilty. There would clearly be more evidence against OJ committing a murder than you. But the burden of proof at a trial is much harder to meet than the low burden required to charge someone.

In the end the NFL can suspend someone found not guilty at a trial just as much as they can suspend someone who wasn't charged in a case. So it doesn't really matter. Either way the criminal justice system has come to a conclusion on Zeke's case. It's not that they just turned the other cheek. They completed their investigation and found no wrong doing. The NFL decided that it wasn't good enough and they did whatever they wanted.
 
Top Bottom