NFL PA Statement

[Dhragon]

I become so weary of the either/or false choices we are presented. We are almost taunted into accepting the idea that any defense offered is somehow "victim shaming," which is of course nonsense. The state of mind of the accuser, the background of the accuser and the actions of the accuser all provide insight into the likely truthfulness of the accuser. Yes it's true "victim shaming" has occurred, and we ought to make every effort to protect women and encourage them not to fear telling the truth. But we can't cross a threshold that eliminates the ability of the accused to defend his reputation, which merely by the fact of the accusation has already been heavily damaged.

This is framed these days as a man/woman issue when it is correctly a human/human issue. We have a responsibility to respect the rights of both parties and to respect the fact that either could be telling the truth. But the NFL issued a statement publicly branding Ezekiel Elliott as an abuser. Should we prevent him being able to offer any public defense? Those inclined to accept Elliott's guilt keep reminding us this isn't a criminal case and is more akin to a civil case, where preponderance of evidence trumps reasonable doubt. I would argue it is neither. It is an employer enforcing discipline on an employee under the strictures of a collective bargaining agreement.

But we can't stop there. We can't be naive. This is also a PR battle. The NFL made public accusations. It is now slamming the NFLPA for -- supposedly -- attempting to poke holes in the accusation by presenting alternate facts. Those alternate facts present the accuser in a poor light. But they are, it would seem, facts. And I struggle to understand why it is "public shaming" to point out those facts. Yes it creates an uncomfortable situation for the accuser, but this is true in almost any situation in which one is accused of doing something illegal, immoral or criminal. The character and motives of the accuser are as much an indicator as those of the accused.

We are a nation built in part on the concept that the accused has a right to a defense. At what point did we decide that wasn't true for a man accused by a woman of having committed violence against her? At what point did we say this is sufficiently reprehensible that the accusation alone makes the accused guilty? And if it turns out he was innocent, the fact his reputation was destroyed is merely unfortunate collateral damage.

At what point did we decide the accuser's reputation is more important than the reputation of the accused? They are both human beings. Both of them have already endured a measure of public shaming. There are people who will never believe her, absent 100% proof. There are people who will never believe him, absent 100% proof. He is at a disadvantage because of the inherent difficulty of proving a negative.

But is it reasonable to take the position that Elliott and his defenders must not use facts to defend his reputation before it is tarnished beyond repair? Is his reputation meaningless because he has been accused of a heinous act? Is this what we've come to? Have we gone so far that even his family cannot point to facts that suggest their son might just be innocent? And if they do so that explains everything -- of course he is a woman beater because look at the insensitivity of his family in defending their son by pointing to her actions, motives and behavior? Aha! Now we have the answer.

Is this where we've come? Is this the outcome we want?

Very well said!

 

[CowboyStar88]

There has been a noticeable shift in public opinion since Friday IMO. Other than goshan of course.

Yep as more information has come to light I've seen many fans of different teams start to question the validity of the NFL and RG

 

[waldoputty]

How exactly is there shaming involved in this???????? All I see are straight facts. SHE MADE THE TEXT EXCHANGE!!

Anything else that has come to light as well are documented facts. What is your definition of shaming?

this poster rather support the accuser who has committed crimes and likely felonies at that.
i guess felons are ok if it supports the agenda

 

[waldoputty]

Yep as more information has come to light I've seen many fans of different teams start to question the validity of the NFL and RG

really, that is interesting.
where can we see about that?

 

[ShortRound]

Wow. This is gonna get ugly isn't it?

 

[bsbellomy]

I become so weary of the either/or false choices we are presented. We are almost taunted into accepting the idea that any defense offered is somehow "victim shaming," which is of course nonsense. The state of mind of the accuser, the background of the accuser and the actions of the accuser all provide insight into the likely truthfulness of the accuser. Yes it's true "victim shaming" has occurred, and we ought to make every effort to protect women and encourage them not to fear telling the truth. But we can't cross a threshold that eliminates the ability of the accused to defend his reputation, which merely by the fact of the accusation has already been heavily damaged.

This is framed these days as a man/woman issue when it is correctly a human/human issue. We have a responsibility to respect the rights of both parties and to respect the fact that either could be telling the truth. But the NFL issued a statement publicly branding Ezekiel Elliott as an abuser. Should we prevent him being able to offer any public defense? Those inclined to accept Elliott's guilt keep reminding us this isn't a criminal case and is more akin to a civil case, where preponderance of evidence trumps reasonable doubt. I would argue it is neither. It is an employer enforcing discipline on an employee under the strictures of a collective bargaining agreement.

But we can't stop there. We can't be naive. This is also a PR battle. The NFL made public accusations. It is now slamming the NFLPA for -- supposedly -- attempting to poke holes in the accusation by presenting alternate facts. Those alternate facts present the accuser in a poor light. But they are, it would seem, facts. And I struggle to understand why it is "public shaming" to point out those facts. Yes it creates an uncomfortable situation for the accuser, but this is true in almost any situation in which one is accused of doing something illegal, immoral or criminal. The character and motives of the accuser are as much an indicator as those of the accused.

We are a nation built in part on the concept that the accused has a right to a defense. At what point did we decide that wasn't true for a man accused by a woman of having committed violence against her? At what point did we say this is sufficiently reprehensible that the accusation alone makes the accused guilty? And if it turns out he was innocent, the fact his reputation was destroyed is merely unfortunate collateral damage.

At what point did we decide the accuser's reputation is more important than the reputation of the accused? They are both human beings. Both of them have already endured a measure of public shaming. There are people who will never believe her, absent 100% proof. There are people who will never believe him, absent 100% proof. He is at a disadvantage because of the inherent difficulty of proving a negative.

But is it reasonable to take the position that Elliott and his defenders must not use facts to defend his reputation before it is tarnished beyond repair? Is his reputation meaningless because he has been accused of a heinous act? Is this what we've come to? Have we gone so far that even his family cannot point to facts that suggest their son might just be innocent? And if they do so that explains everything -- of course he is a woman beater because look at the insensitivity of his family in defending their son by pointing to her actions, motives and behavior? Aha! Now we have the answer.

Is this where we've come? Is this the outcome we want?

I get what you are saying, but even in the NFL's response they noted to Zeke there are injuries to the accuser that he cannot explain. And it seems his defense thus far has not been to explain those injuries. Now maybe it's coming, but his team did not start with their focal point. I'm pretty sure they already knew her credibility was ****, but that still doesn't wash away the part of their findings that they are basing their decision on.

By the way, I think people were hoping for a more pronounced and active denial. Google "mcgregor responds to racism claims", that's the kind of response I would expect (if he's innocent).

 

[speedkilz88]

I get what you are saying, but even in the NFL's response they noted to Zeke there are injuries to the accuser that he cannot explain. And it seems his defense thus far has not been to exaplin those injuries. Now maybe it's coming, but his team did not start with their focal point. I'm pretty sure they already knew her credibility was ****, but that still doesn't wash away the part of their findings that they are basing their decision on.

Putting burden of proof on the accused is un-american. In fact it's secret police tactics of Stalin's Russia.

 

[tomsanders921]

I get what you are saying, but even in the NFL's response they noted to Zeke there are injuries to the accuser that he cannot explain. And it seems his defense thus far has not been to exaplin those injuries. Now maybe it's coming, but his team did not start with their focal point. I'm pretty sure they already knew her credibility was ****, but that still doesn't wash away the part of their findings that they are basing their decision on.

Yeah but you can't expect him to know how she got the injuries if they weren't by him. It's like telling a suspect you are guilty unless you can prove someone else is guilty

 

[Shake_Tiller]

I get what you are saying, but even in the NFL's response they noted to Zeke there are injuries to the accuser that he cannot explain. And it seems his defense thus far has not been to exaplin those injuries. Now maybe it's coming, but his team did not start with their focal point. I'm pretty sure they already knew her credibility was ****, but that still doesn't wash away the part of their findings that they are basing their decision on.

Understood, but what if he can't explain her injuries? What is he wasn't there when they occurred?

 

[Doomsday]

Understood, but what if he can't explain her injuries? What is he wasn't there when they occurred?

I thought there were witnesses who said she got into an altercation with another female.

Also, who is to say they weren't self inflicted as part of her plan to "ruin his career" because "he was going to be sorry"

 

[Beats_By_Zeke]

I thought there were witnesses who said she got into an altercation with another female.

Theres a signed paper that says that. But their side is saying that fight happened after the bruises. Which is where the alter metadata is coming into play.

 

[PBCCowboy]

I get what you are saying, but even in the NFL's response they noted to Zeke there are injuries to the accuser that he cannot explain. And it seems his defense thus far has not been to exaplin those injuries. Now maybe it's coming, but his team did not start with their focal point. I'm pretty sure they already knew her credibility was ****, but that still doesn't wash away the part of their findings that they are basing their decision on.

There is a signed affidavit by a security guard who witnessed Tiffany Thompson involved in a fight with another woman around the date of the supposed incident with Zeke.That could explain some.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

I thought there were witnesses who said she got into an altercation with another female.

I understand video of the fight showed hair-pulling and they concluded she could not have gotten the bruises at that point. But it isn't proof Elliott caused the bruises. The NFL has chosen to believe her, and so we find ourselves in a circle. And that is why I can't imagine a scenario in which her credibility is off limits to a man whose reputation will and already has been, to a large extent, irreparably harmed.

 

[bsbellomy]

Understood, but what if he can't explain her injuries? What is he wasn't there when they occurred?

Look, I'm telling you what the NFL wants. Giving them info they already have is not going to do anything. Unless she beat herself up, there is at least one witness who knows what happened.

 

[PBCCowboy]

One question...who dumped who?
That question can actually answer a lot here.

 

[bsbellomy]

There is a signed affidavit by a security guard who witnessed Tiffany Thompson involved in a fight with another woman around the date of the supposed incident with Zeke.That could explain some.

Yeah, the NFL says they contracted with medical experts that can date the injuries. I'm not smart enough to know how, or even if its a bunch of BS.

If I read the report correctly they said there were injuries that occurred separately over a three day period. Someone correct me if that's not right.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

Look, I'm telling you what the NFL wants. Giving them info they already have is not going to do anything. Unless she beat herself up, there is at least one witness who knows what happened.

I understand what you're telling me and appreciate the guidance. But what the NFL wants isn't particularly interesting to me, as I think that is quite transparent. I am interested in the reasons folks are arguing that somehow Elliott's public defense must not in any way "shame" his accuser. Must he then accept his "shame" as the price of... of I am not quite certain.

 

[Screw The Hall]

I become so weary of the either/or false choices we are presented. We are almost taunted into accepting the idea that any defense offered is somehow "victim shaming," which is of course nonsense. The state of mind of the accuser, the background of the accuser and the actions of the accuser all provide insight into the likely truthfulness of the accuser. Yes it's true "victim shaming" has occurred, and we ought to make every effort to protect women and encourage them not to fear telling the truth. But we can't cross a threshold that eliminates the ability of the accused to defend his reputation, which merely by the fact of the accusation has already been heavily damaged.

This is framed these days as a man/woman issue when it is correctly a human/human issue. We have a responsibility to respect the rights of both parties and to respect the fact that either could be telling the truth. But the NFL issued a statement publicly branding Ezekiel Elliott as an abuser. Should we prevent him being able to offer any public defense? Those inclined to accept Elliott's guilt keep reminding us this isn't a criminal case and is more akin to a civil case, where preponderance of evidence trumps reasonable doubt. I would argue it is neither. It is an employer enforcing discipline on an employee under the strictures of a collective bargaining agreement.

But we can't stop there. We can't be naive. This is also a PR battle. The NFL made public accusations. It is now slamming the NFLPA for -- supposedly -- attempting to poke holes in the accusation by presenting alternate facts. Those alternate facts present the accuser in a poor light. But they are, it would seem, facts. And I struggle to understand why it is "public shaming" to point out those facts. Yes it creates an uncomfortable situation for the accuser, but this is true in almost any situation in which one is accused of doing something illegal, immoral or criminal. The character and motives of the accuser are as much an indicator as those of the accused.

We are a nation built in part on the concept that the accused has a right to a defense. At what point did we decide that wasn't true for a man accused by a woman of having committed violence against her? At what point did we say this is sufficiently reprehensible that the accusation alone makes the accused guilty? And if it turns out he was innocent, the fact his reputation was destroyed is merely unfortunate collateral damage.

At what point did we decide the accuser's reputation is more important than the reputation of the accused? They are both human beings. Both of them have already endured a measure of public shaming. There are people who will never believe her, absent 100% proof. There are people who will never believe him, absent 100% proof. He is at a disadvantage because of the inherent difficulty of proving a negative.

But is it reasonable to take the position that Elliott and his defenders must not use facts to defend his reputation before it is tarnished beyond repair? Is his reputation meaningless because he has been accused of a heinous act? Is this what we've come to? Have we gone so far that even his family cannot point to facts that suggest their son might just be innocent? And if they do so that explains everything -- of course he is a woman beater because look at the insensitivity of his family in defending their son by pointing to her actions, motives and behavior? Aha! Now we have the answer.

Is this where we've come? Is this the outcome we want?

Amazing post.

 

[Corso]

I hate this. I just hate this. I wish this would have not have gone so far, but here we are.
Did Zeke do something to her in a harmful manner? I sincerely hope he didn't, but if he did...

All of this stinks. I love this guy, as a player, but I'm not happy about this situation and he has done absolutely nothing since those incidents to make him look like a proper guy who wouldn't do such things.

Who raised him?! Jerry should have put a body on him the second he signed a contract.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

I hate this. I just hate this. I wish this would have not have gone so far, but here we are.
Did Zeke do something to her in a harmful manner? I sincerely hope he didn't, but if he did...

All of this stinks. I love this guy, as a player, but I'm not happy about this situation and he has done absolutely nothing since those incidents to make him look like a proper guy who wouldn't do such things.

Who raised him?! Jerry should have put a body on him the second he signed a contract.

We'd all love for none of this -- whatever this is -- to have happened. But this is life; the real world. Some of us have seen similar circumstances too many times to be overly shocked. But we are still saddened. Consider these arguments --

We cannot shame the accuser on the strength of her past actions and poor conduct.

We can assume the accused is guilty on the strength of his past actions and poor conduct.

See what we did there?