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

speedkilz88 said:
They were trying to repunish Rice for the same act. There is a name for that ... double jeopardy.
Click to expand...
@Reality is correct...... the only Double Jeopardy in the NFL is that the team and the league can't punish you for the same offense

Ray Rice's first suspension of 2 games was legit..........after they released video they tried to extend it to indefinite without pay and then the Ravens cut him

He not only had the extended suspension overturned but he got most of his salary back for the whole year from the Ravens(that is Double Jeopardy)....... but he never played another down of football...... NFL still wins
 
They could have suspended Brady for something else as well but they didn't (like destroying his phone). He played that entire year.
 
Reality said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't see what point you think you are making.

Yes, the NFL can say that Zeke looked at Goodell funny at the draft and it is conduct detrimental and suspend him for however long they like.

That like what you are asserting here is unlikely to hold up in court and play out just like this current debacle is. Nevermind the huge PR hit the league would take while completely alienating the playerbase.
 
big dog cowboy said:
Settlement resulting in a reduction of suspended games? No way.

The NFL should just admit it botched the case, make the suspension go away and go on with life.

The season has started and this issue go away immediately with all the talk being about stuff that actually happens ON THE FIELD.
Click to expand...


I agree. the NFL and Goddell owes Zeke, Jerry Jones, and the Cowboys a big fat apology.

In return we won't exile him to Mara's secret bedroom.
 
ChldsPlay said:
He said if it is unwelcome. Then it would be sexual assault. Of course, that doesn't apply in this case.
Click to expand...

It's not sexual assault even if it is 'unwelcomed.'

It's indecent exposure.

That's what so many people don't understand.




YR
 
mrtxstar said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are confusing the two.........both the Columbus and Fort Lauderdale police departments decided against filing charges against Zeke, so there is no criminal proceedings going on. The NFL decided to suspend Zeke under their DV policy which does not require a criminal charge, if they think he did it then they suspend him. The judge ruled that the process the league used to determine if he was guilty or not was unfair and banned the NFL from punishing Zeke.

If the NFL appeals, it will go to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans and the league will ask them to reinstate the suspension, ala Brady, and they will either say yes or no. But regardless of what the Appeals Court rules, Zeke is not facing any criminal charges.
 
Why would you settle when you are going to win? Why give the NFL a way out. The NFLPA has the NFL dead to rights.
 
Yakuza Rich said:
It's not sexual assault even if it is 'unwelcomed.'

It's indecent exposure.

That's what so many people don't understand.




YR
Click to expand...

No, it is not indecent exposure. In Texas, the legal definition of indecent exposure is "deliberate exposure in public or in view of the general public by a person of a portion or portions of HIS or HER body" (not someone else's). The Texas law goes on to say that it is limited to the anus and/or genitals.

Assault, meanwhile, is defined as "an attempt to initiate harmful or OFFENSIVE CONTACT with a person". Pulling down the young lady's shirt is definitely an attempt to initiate offensive contact. Whether or not that matches the legal definition of assault in the state of Texas, I don't know. According to this general definition, however, could be construed as assault.
 
Beast_from_East said:
You are confusing the two.........both the Columbus and Fort Lauderdale police departments decided against filing charges against Zeke, so there is no criminal proceedings going on. The NFL decided to suspend Zeke under their DV policy which does not require a criminal charge, if they think he did it then they suspend him. The judge ruled that the process the league used to determine if he was guilty or not was unfair and banned the NFL from punishing Zeke.

If the NFL appeals, it will go to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans and the league will ask them to reinstate the suspension, ala Brady, and they will either say yes or no. But regardless of what the Appeals Court rules, Zeke is not facing any criminal charges.
Click to expand...
Yeah, @Reality already convinced me of my confusion but thank you anyway. I don't think the New Orleans 5th Circuit of Appeals will give the NFL the ruling they want but you know they won't just let this go.
 
Am I correct that this is going to end up as a judicial review type case whereby the Court reviews the NFLs procedures (and will not review the facts of the EE allegations).

If so, there are 3 possible outcomes?

1. NFL procedures are good. EE side pay costs - could be in the millions by the time this is over. EE serves suspension.

2. NFL made some procedural errors. But these errors did not impact on the outcome. Costs are shared. EE serves suspension. NFL fixes its errors going forward so every future suspension is impossible to challenge.

3. NFL made some major procedural errors. NFL pays the full costs. EE is put through a revised process which is based on the courts recommendations, so the outcome cant be challenged. EE may or may not be suspended. Future suspensions will be impossible to challenge.

For the NFL this is only one battle in a wider war. Even the worst case scenario for them is some embarrassment and costs in the short term, but having bullet proof procedures going forward.
 
links18 said:
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.
Click to expand...
It was "stupid" to some mainly older people that act like this isn't more regular behavior in that environment where it happened at. It's not worth a game but if they did that instead of DV nobody says anything. That isn't conduct detrimental to the league because if it is they are about to open a box of why not this person I don't think they want to do.
 
The only way I'm even considering a settlement if I'm Zeke is if the NFL agreed that punishment from any further incidents would have to be signed off on by his employer, the Dallas Cowboys. Take it or leave it NFL.
 
Reality said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, double jeopardy is more of a criminal term, but it was more or less that concept that over turned Ray Rice's year long suspension
 
There is a Grand Canyon's worth of difference between immature, even objectively poor behavior and domestic violence. The NFL quite casually tagged Elliott with a DV label. The league did so on the back of scant evidence, illegally withheld information and dicey testimony both from the accuser and from league officials.

My message to the NFL would be "No quarter." Justice is served when Goodell is running a sno cone stand in Albuquerque.
 
rpntex said:
No, it is not indecent exposure. In Texas, the legal definition of indecent exposure is "deliberate exposure in public or in view of the general public by a person of a portion or portions of HIS or HER body" (not someone else's). The Texas law goes on to say that it is limited to the anus and/or genitals.

Assault, meanwhile, is defined as "an attempt to initiate harmful or OFFENSIVE CONTACT with a person". Pulling down the young lady's shirt is definitely an attempt to initiate offensive contact. Whether or not that matches the legal definition of assault in the state of Texas, I don't know. According to this general definition, however, could be construed as assault.
Click to expand...
By this definition it isnt sexual assault either then because she was laughing and was clearly not offended by it
 
Philmonroe said:
It was "stupid" to some mainly older people that act like this isn't more regular behavior in that environment where it happened at. It's not worth a game but if they did that instead of DV nobody says anything. That isn't conduct detrimental to the league because if it is they are about to open a box of why not this person I don't think they want to do.
Click to expand...


He did it in public where children could possibly have seen it. It was incredibly stupid, especially since he knew he was already under investigation. If he did it on Mardi Gras in New Orleans or in Amsterdam that's one thing, but I don't think it was the case (was it?). Cant compare that to motorboating in a night club, which I assume has a doorman and an ID policy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 8,558 (members: 40, guests: 8,518)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
464,577
Messages
13,819,762
Members
23,780
Latest member
HoppleSopple
Back
Top