If NFL reduces Zeke's suspension, is that new baseline?

[casmith07]

You said it yourself -- protects from the government. The 5th and 14th amendment due process clauses apply to federal and state governments, or government-supported institutions, not private organizations.

I know that...which is why I said it...

 

[casmith07]

which would not apply since the government is not involved in this.

I said that.

 

[jazzcat22]

The Constitution applies to federal and state governments. The NFL isn't superseding constitutional rights because they don't even apply in this context.

From the Bill of Rights.
https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/


Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

 

[wrongway]

The baseline would be whatever the reduced suspension number was. The NFL can't go back and rescind that whether Elliott takes it to court or not.

That's why I believe that barring a complete reversal of his suspension to 0 games, this case will be taken to court.

Zeke wants his name cleared and nothing short of 0 games will do that. And he's got nothing to lose taking the league to court if this thing isn't reduced rather than eliminated completely.

He might want to ask Brady how much money he racked up in lawyer fees. Zeke doesn't have Mrs Brady's cash.

 

[bsbellomy]

He might want to ask Brady how much money he racked up in lawyer fees. Zeke doesn't have Mrs Brady's cash.

If he files a motion with the court, that would tell me he has Mr Jones's cash. I'm guessing Brady's legal fees were somewhere north of a million.

 

[Stash]

He might want to ask Brady how much money he racked up in lawyer fees. Zeke doesn't have Mrs Brady's cash.

It would be a pittance compared to what he'd already be losing in contract bonuses and guarantees and endorsements.

A drop in the bucket.

And from what I've read, the NFLPA offered to pick up his legal fees. But I'm not sure if that included Kessler or not.

Either way, he loses much more by not fighting than he would in legal fees.

 

[mickswag]

From the Bill of Rights.
https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/


Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

This isn't a criminal prosecution. The NFL cannot levy criminal penalties. Only a court can.

 

[NorthwestDallas40]

Not sure how Broaddus knows, but he answered question as to whether a reduced suspension reverts back to 6 games if Zeke files and loses a federal appeal.

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

This isn't a criminal prosecution. The NFL cannot levy criminal penalties. Only a court can.

That's exactly right. It's not a criminal issue, it's a right to work issue. Which is governed by CBAs in union-management circumstances.

 

[Insomniac]

From the Bill of Rights.
https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/


Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

These don't apply to this case because this is an employment discipline issue not a criminal issue.

 

[Nova]

You can divorce the sentence from the alleged crime because of the word "alleged".

There have been almost 20 instances of DV involved cases since the new baseline 6 game suspension went into effect, and only 2 of those instances have gotten the full 6 games.

They usually just call it "conduct detrimental to the league" when they can't pin the crime on the player-- ala Josh Brown.

So they could (and most definitely should) at the very least concede the uncertainty and reduce the suspension under that broader penalty.

But that goes against their PR crusade.

 

[EPL0c0]

You can divorce the sentence from the alleged crime because of the word "alleged".

There have been almost 20 instances of DV involved cases since the new baseline 6 game suspension went into effect, and only 2 of those instances have gotten the full 6 games.

They usually just call it "conduct detrimental to the league" when they can't pin the crime on the player-- ala Josh Brown.

So they could (and most definitely should) at the very least concede the uncertainty and reduce the suspension under that broader penalty.

But that goes against their PR crusade.

Josh Brown admitted to abuse "physically, emotionally and verbally" so there's that specific conduct the league can base a suspension on in his case..

Basing "conduct" on an allegation(s) seems flimsy as heck. I think the league should have to prove the conduct in order to suspend for that conduct.

The definition of what's "detrimental" to the league seems very subjective. The fights between drunken fans in the stands at games is far more detrimental to the image of the league than what Zeke did on St Patrick's Day.

It'll be interesting how they handle the Tramaine Brock case now. He was accused, legally cleared, same as Zeke, so will they still get him for conduct detrimental to the league. Gotta keep an eye on that one.

 

[jrumann59]

There is a clause in the policy that allows a reduction in the 6 games for "mitigating" factors.

But wouldn't those factors have been used in deciding then original suspension

 

[jrumann59]

The NFL is not a court. They don't have to prove guilt. They don't have to conduct a trial. He's not even entitled to a trial with the NFL as a matter of right. If it is collectively-bargained for, and is a must in these proceedings as part of the agreement, then and only then is he entitled to a trial with the NFL and everything else you're asserting. Yes he's losing money, but that doesn't mean that the Constitution suddenly protects him from losing that money. The Constitution applies to government actions or actors.

Yes but they also do not have the right to label someone as X because they believe he may have done it. If all they said was he is suspended for 6 games for conduct detrimental and left DV out this probably would be a non issue after the appeal. But to be labeled something with zero definitive proof is a reckless way to run a discipline plan.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

If he still appeals,is the reduced suspension the new baseline if he loses an appeal in federal court or is it still 6 games? If anyone knows.

that would be bad for NFL. a disaster. it has to be either 6 or nothing.

 

[Nightman]

From the Bill of Rights.
https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/


Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

This is right from the NFL's policy


A failure to cooperate with an investigation or to be truthful in responding to inquiries will be separate grounds for disciplinary action.

Because the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination does not apply in a workplace investigation, the league will reserve the right to compel an employee to cooperate in its investigations even when the employee is the target of a pending law enforcement investigation or proceeding. An employee’s refusal to speak to a league investigator under such circumstances will not preclude an investigation from proceeding or discipline from being imposed.

 

[Doomsay]

Unfortunately, this is the reality of the situation. It has nothing to do with being fair or just, but rather trying to win the PR battle by pretending to care about social issues while keeping the focus off other areas like player safety, long term player health, etc. and out of the media for as long as possible.

And make obscene profits in the interim.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There have been several other cases since the new policy. Gillette Brown etc. Those should have been the precedent.

The notion that the NFL uses an objective standard is nonsense.

 

[big dog cowboy]

The notion that the NFL uses an objective standard is nonsense.

Nonsense is a pretty conservative word there doc.