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

[Diehardblues]

Could a settlement happen in the Elliott case?

That’s not to say Elliott would take the literal middle ground of a three-game suspension. But how about a one- or two-game suspension for pulling down the woman’s top at the St. Patrick’s Day parade? While the league didn’t discipline him for that, the incident was mentioned in the letter informing Elliott of his six-game suspension. Also, there’s no way anyone can dispute that it happened, since it’s on video.

...

Right or wrong, the league concluded that Elliott committed domestic violence. Reducing the suspension without an admission from Elliott that he committed domestic violence would create a potential P.R. problem for the league, creating the impression that it was too soft on domestic abuse. If, in turn, the league admits that it botched the investigation and disciplinary process, that won’t be good for business, either.

So even if Elliott were willing to accept a suspension for something other than domestic abuse, the league may have no good way out of the corner into which it has painted itself. Which means that the league’s only choice may be to wait in that corner for a lifeline from an appeals court.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/09/09/could-a-settlement-happen-in-the-elliott-case/

Good discussion but I'd say the NFL and Goodell are all in on the Domestic Violence sentence. And the Commissioner had already addressed the St Patrick's incident . They decided there was enough on the DV to move forward .

But the process will be challenged. It will be interesting if the process is proven to be unfair if that will dismiss the case intervening with the collective bargaining agreement which Courts typically stay out of which allows the Commissioner a wide latitude to enforce on personal conduct detrimental to the league.

 

[erod]

I would gladly accept a 1-game suspension for general idiocy to make this all go away.

 

[casmith07]

I would gladly accept a 1-game suspension for general idiocy to make this all go away.

Good thing you're not Zeke.

 

[casmith07]

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

It's indecent exposure.

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




YR

Depends on the state/statute. In the U.S. Military, it's 100% a sexual assault.

 

[eyedoc]

Could a settlement happen in the Elliott case?

That’s not to say Elliott would take the literal middle ground of a three-game suspension. But how about a one- or two-game suspension for pulling down the woman’s top at the St. Patrick’s Day parade? While the league didn’t discipline him for that, the incident was mentioned in the letter informing Elliott of his six-game suspension. Also, there’s no way anyone can dispute that it happened, since it’s on video.

...

Right or wrong, the league concluded that Elliott committed domestic violence. Reducing the suspension without an admission from Elliott that he committed domestic violence would create a potential P.R. problem for the league, creating the impression that it was too soft on domestic abuse. If, in turn, the league admits that it botched the investigation and disciplinary process, that won’t be good for business, either.

So even if Elliott were willing to accept a suspension for something other than domestic abuse, the league may have no good way out of the corner into which it has painted itself. Which means that the league’s only choice may be to wait in that corner for a lifeline from an appeals court.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/09/09/could-a-settlement-happen-in-the-elliott-case/

If Zeke accepts a settlement it imply a wrong doing. So no I do not think he would be okay with a settlement. Also the NFL is in too deep to turn around and offer one it would equal a lessening on their DV case. Go Cowboys

 

[Shake_Tiller]

I would gladly accept a 1-game suspension for general idiocy to make this all go away.

The problem: The genie is out of the bottle. The league made that choice. Goodell is a selective moralist, comfortable with being judge, jury and executioner. He thinks he is a good human being because he lives by his own moral code. But is code is deeply flawed. He would destroy a man's reputation in the name of the Shield and allow justice to be manipulated while doing so. He has no capacity to admit when he is wrong.

The genie has convinced a lot of people Ezekiel Elliott beats women. There is no evidence such is the case. This is deeply wrong. At this point, the issue won't go away no matter what convenient mechanism we suggest. When cornered, fight.

 

[aikemirv]

The only thing that I would agree to is no suspension and a public apology and a statement that we found no evidence of DV.
The NFL will never do this. In the next CBA the players have to hold out for :if real prosecuters do not find enough evidence to prosecute, the NFL cannot investigate and prosecute players"

We have seen from this case that the NFL is not impartial and the players cannot expect that from them going forward

 

[jazzcat22]

If I were Elliott and the NFLPA, I would say, "We'll talk about it next off-season! We have games to play now"

Plus it helps keep the NFL's embarrassing court loss a topic of discussion all year

But the thing is will anyone in the media other than those that already have. Stand up and tell the truth. Put it all on the table. It is an issue of being railroaded, as opposed to a DV case now.
You know costs will come on tonight and give a biased rant editorial about how Zeke should be burned at the stake....instead he should have the balls to say how the NFL FO should be on that stake.

 

[jazzcat22]

Really not sure where you got that from, but that is completely wrong. For this case to be considered "criminal", a federal or state government would have be prosecuting it. It would also mean that Elliott was at risk of a criminal judgement, which he is not.

Right, no charges were ever made, so it is not criminal.

 

[diefree666]

But the thing is will anyone in the media other than those that already have. Stand up and tell the truth. Put it all on the table. It is an issue of being railroaded, as opposed to a DV case now.
You know costs will come on tonight and give a biased rant editorial about how Zeke should be burned at the stake....instead he should have the balls to say how the NFL FO should be on that stake.

The only hope is that a year of constant steady accounts of NFL incompetence and venality will gradually alter the PR battlefield. Faint hope I know but that is about it.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

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.

It's not assault.

At worse it would be either indecent exposure or something along those lines (depends on where it took place) like simple misdemeanor battery where you would pay a small fine.



YR

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Depends on the state/statute. In the U.S. Military, it's 100% a sexual assault.

Well, that's the military which is a completely different game.

I actually asked a few friends who are cops, lawyers and one who is a judge. They all said the same thing.

It's a misdemeanor either way. Whether it's indecent exposure or simple battery. It's not sexual assault.




YR

 

[Verdict]

Zeke isn't likely to agree to a suspension so long as it's fit domestic violence because of the much harsher penalty for a repeat offender. If the league offered Zeke a compromise of lesser games and it did not count as a strike towards the DV policy then he would have to really consider it, even if he thinks he has a great chance of winning in the courts.

 

[Verdict]

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.

Actually it is a lot different. In this particular case the NFL is cherry picking eveidence from a non credible person and essentially depriving Elliott of due process.

They could punish him harshly for something minor that did happen and I'm not sure there is a lot we could do about it.

 

[Verdict]

By this definition it isnt sexual assault either then because she was laughing and was clearly not offended by it

That's true it's not sexual assault. But that doesn't mean anything with respect to the NFL. You guys are missing that point.


The NFL isn't a count of law. It's a business that can make decisions without much regard for the accurate facts. In fact they would be much better off not even having a specific policy in effect. They could punish for pretty much anything and the range of punishment could be almost unfettered.

 

[Nightman]

Actually it is a lot different. In this particular case the NFL is cherry picking eveidence from a non credible person and essentially depriving Elliott of due process.

They could punish him harshly for something minor that did happen and I'm not sure there is a lot we could do about it.

It would blatant harassment.,....... they already cleared him of it after investigating.... there is no new info

EE would run right into Mazza 's courtroom and get another injunction after making the NFL go through their own kangaroo court appeals process

we would right back to where we are now only EE would be looking at 1-2 games instead of six.... the NFL would still not want a ruling from this Court to stand as precedent

 

[Philmonroe]

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.

Man spare me the what about the kids bs. That's just some bogus cop out. I can compare the two incidents and many will also if that's the new way of doing things whether you like it or not.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

That's true it's not sexual assault. But that doesn't mean anything with respect to the NFL. You guys are missing that point.


The NFL isn't a count of law. It's a business that can make decisions without much regard for the accurate facts. In fact they would be much better off not even having a specific policy in effect. They could punish for pretty much anything and the range of punishment could be almost unfettered.

I think most people understand that.

The problem is that the NFL stated that the St. Paddy's Day incident has been closed and is not a part of this.

So they would, once again, run into the issue of 'fundamental fairness' and violating the CBA because unless new evidence came along they are violating the same decision that Harold Henderson made. That's more wasted time and money for the NFL which is essentially ran by the owners.





YR

 

[rpntex]

By this definition it isnt sexual assault either then because she was laughing and was clearly not offended by it

I didn't say anything about sexual assault, but that's really beside the point, which is that pulling down the young lady's top is "an attempt to initiate OFFENSIVE CONTACT". By that definition, it IS assault.

 

[GroundZero1970]

But if she was not offended (which obviously she wasnt) then it is not offensive contact..everything else is just noise