News: PFT: Could a settlement happen in the Elliott case?

[Philmonroe]

There is no double jeopardy in "conduct detrimental to the league" rulings by the NFL. "Double Jeopardy" is a legal term used in criminal prosecutions.

Why did Ray Rice win based on double jeopardy or something close then?

 

[Reality]

Why did Ray Rice win based on double jeopardy or something close then?

If I remember correctly, Rice's win on appeal simply vacated a revised suspension when the NFL suspended him for 2 games, which was their standard punishment for first time offenders at the time the DV incident happened, then later on they tried to re-suspend him a second time (indefinitely) for the same incident using their new policies which were put in place after the incident. The courts said you cannot change the policies after the fact and then try to re-apply them to an incident that happened before those changes were implemented.

So, in this case, the NFL cannot turn around and suspend Elliott for more than 6 games for the alleged incident against Thompson because 6 games is their standard policy now for first time DV offenders. However, since they closed the case against him on the shirt-pulled-down incident, they have not suspended him for that yet. There are no rules that prevent them from re-opening a closed case (not a legal term in this situation, it's just a word to say they are no longer investigating an incident) and suspending a player if they believe it violated their policies at the time of the incident.

That said, all the NFL would have to do is vacate the current 6-game suspension and then suspend him 2-games for the shirt-pulled-down incident. By vacating the first suspension, the second incident would then be the first ruling against Elliott as the other incident would no longer exist. Before anyone starts up with the already posted "she allowed it so it doesn't count" arguments, remember .. this is not criminal law .. this is the NFL deciding what constitutes "conduct detrimental to the league."

Again, I am not supporting the NFL's argument. I fully believe their best move is to admit mistakes, maybe fire one or two people for those mistakes, then drop the suspension and move on as fast as they can.

 

[mardwin]

taking a deal implies guilt by Zeke and defeats the purpose of all the time/money invested by the NFLPA

 

[links18]

I wouldn't complain if he got suspended a game for the shirt incident. That was incredibly stupid and probably fits the definition of "conduct detrimental to the league." The DV case on the other hand has been an atrocious abuse of authority and discretion by the league.

 

[Reality]

I wouldn't complain if he got suspended a game for the shirt incident. That was incredibly stupid and probably fits the definition of "conduct detrimental to the league." The DV case on the other hand has been an atrocious abuse of authority and discretion by the league.

Many analysts and experts I read comments by over the last few months have said the same thing. The NFL got greedy though, and went full in with a case filled with red flags everywhere rather than the one that would have been harder to argue given their near absolute power over determining conduct detrimental to the league.

 

[Risen Star]

Settle? When you're innocent? I don't think so.

Suspended for pulling a shirt down? Did the woman even complain about it? What a ridiculous reason to be suspended.

 

[wrongway]

The problem is that it sets the stage for double jeopardy. It opens the floodgates for any prior offense to serve as the basis for a future suspension.

On a side note. How is Joe mixon not getting a full media colonoscopy for smashing a woman?

 

[TheHerd]

On a side note. How is Joe mixon not getting a full media colonoscopy for smashing a woman?

I think it was before the draft, so the league has no recourse. i agree the media could still be all over it. And if he wore the star, I bet they would be all over it.

 

[Don Corleone]

On a side note. How is Joe mixon not getting a full media colonoscopy for smashing a woman?

Timing issue I guess. Was it before he was drafted? How is Jarvis Landry not suspended yet? And where is the media attention? Police were called and no charges filed. There's a video also. I see 6 games in his future.

 

[speedkilz88]

There is no double jeopardy in "conduct detrimental to the league" rulings by the NFL. "Double Jeopardy" is a legal term used in criminal prosecutions.

Actually Ray Rice (who actually had an independent arbitrator) had his extended punishment over-ruled because of double jeopardy.

 

[speedkilz88]

Pulling someone's top up is assault if it is unwelcomed but it is not DV. The league would have a difficult time trying to turn that into DV. Since she didn't complain they have nothing but conduct detrimental to the league and that's a stretch as well just not nearly as much.

The league needs to find a way out of this mess by withdrawing and threatening to address it later. Enough time goes by and people will forget it and it goes away by itself albeit not completely.

It would also open up a whole new can of worms with other party boy players such as Gronkowski who is on tape motorboating a woman; and countless other juvenile things.

 

[speedkilz88]

If I remember correctly, Rice's win on appeal simply vacated a revised suspension when the NFL suspended him for 2 games, which was their standard punishment for first time offenders at the time the DV incident happened, then later on they tried to re-suspend him a second time (indefinitely) for the same incident using their new policies which were put in place after the incident. The courts said you cannot change the policies after the fact and then try to re-apply them to an incident that happened before those changes were implemented.

So, in this case, the NFL cannot turn around and suspend Elliott for more than 6 games for the alleged incident against Thompson because 6 games is their standard policy now for first time DV offenders. However, since they closed the case against him on the shirt-pulled-down incident, they have not suspended him for that yet. There are no rules that prevent them from re-opening a closed case (not a legal term in this situation, it's just a word to say they are no longer investigating an incident) and suspending a player if they believe it violated their policies at the time of the incident.

That said, all the NFL would have to do is vacate the current 6-game suspension and then suspend him 2-games for the shirt-pulled-down incident. By vacating the first suspension, the second incident would then be the first ruling against Elliott as the other incident would no longer exist. Before anyone starts up with the already posted "she allowed it so it doesn't count" arguments, remember .. this is not criminal law .. this is the NFL deciding what constitutes "conduct detrimental to the league."

Again, I am not supporting the NFL's argument. I fully believe their best move is to admit mistakes, maybe fire one or two people for those mistakes, then drop the suspension and move on as fast as they can.

They were trying to repunish Rice for the same act. There is a name for that ... double jeopardy.

 

[Reality]

They were trying to repunish Rice for the same act. There is a name for that ... double jeopardy.

Please read the earlier posts in the thread to understand why this is not double jeopardy (it's already been discussed and debunked). Also, they were stopped because they tried to suspend him longer than their policies allowed at the time of the incident. They had a valid reason to revisit the suspension because they claimed they never saw the video before issuing the suspension (even though they had it all along, they claimed to never see it). They just were not allowed to suspend him longer because their own policies stated first time DV offenders received 2 games at the time he committed the assault.

 

[Merlin]

Not sure why people keep bring up the shirt incident. By the way, it is not an assault if she consented. And she has stated, she didn't have a problem with it. If she had a problem with it, this would be a whole another matter. Regardless of whether it looks bad or not, that's not really the issue. The NFL would really make itself look bad if it were to decide to suspend him on the shirt incident after they previously stated, they would not.

 

[diefree666]

There are some here that just want to show off.

IN THE SUSPENSION MESSAGE the NFL said the shirt incident was closed. Now the NFL is certainly arrogant and overconfident and careless but they are not STUPID ENOUGH to try and reopen that when it would be clear to everyone what it was about.

There is about as much chance of an asteroid wiping out all life on earth TOMORROW as the NFL trying to use the shirt incident.

 

[BrassCowboy]

The Injunction was a civil action but now that the actual domestic violence case is going before the court and is considered a crime against the community and the (State), it is therefore considered a criminal matter.

I like Criminal ID channel too, but you lost me at The

 

[cowboyblue22]

there will be no settlement in this case the league will fight it to the bitter end

 

[Merlin]

The league has shown over and over that they will do whatever they want to without fear of any repercussions. So it is pointless to speculate. The Elliott investigation is proof of that.

 

[JoeKing]

I like Criminal ID channel too, but you lost me at The

Yeah, after @Reality hit me with "the Feds or State are not .prosecuting this", I knew I was just reaching. Oh well. that's why we hash these things out in the first place.

 

[Kevinicus]

It is NOT assault.

It's indecent exposure.





YR

He said if it is unwelcome. Then it would be sexual assault. Of course, that doesn't apply in this case.