Sean Taylor fined 4 games checks, will not be suspended

[random Cs]

When you pull a GUN on somebody in the course of that "fight"??

You bet I think that's "on the same level"... and I think that your argument is comically weak...

Oh really? Lets use your logic:

Michael Pittman tried to murder his wife and child by ramming their car with his. Jamal Lewis is a Cocaine drug lord. Michael Jackson is a child molestor.

Oh wait a second, you actually have to be convicted of a crime first...

They are all misdemeanors, McFly. I think Catholics believe in degree of sin, but in the NFL, all misdemeanors are black eyes on the league. Taylor's punishment is stiff - I just wonder why it isnt in line with previous rulings on similar issues.

I'm not sure what you're arguing. Are you saying all misdemeanors should be treated equally? How many NFL players do you think have gotten DUI's and how many have been suspended for it.

 

[BigDFan5]

If true, I stand corrected. But I'd still like to see a link on that.

My assumption would be that, like the prosecutors in the Taylor case, the league found some pretty weak evidence.

This technically would be a first offense since charges were dropped in the DUI case -- and it is a misdemeanor that he pleaded no contest to -- the rules state he can be fined, suspended, or both. But there is no automatic suspension here.

I know its not automatic but combined with the DUI, the spitting incident, 17k in fines last year, and skipping the symposium you would think maybe they would want to punish him to prove a point. I mean hell they are taking 4 game checks away but will give 2 back at the end of the year if he doesnt mess up YET AGAIN! :laugh1:

 

[BigDFan5]

I believe league policy specifically indicates that a no contest is considered the same as a guilty plea or a conviction.

That is correct. The only thing No contest is good for is trying to avoid showing guilt in case of a civil suit

 

[Joey T]

I know its not automatic but combined with the DUI, the spitting incident, 17k in fines last year, and skipping the symposium you would think maybe they would want to punish him to prove a point. I mean hell they are taking 4 game checks away but will give 2 back at the end of the year if he doesnt mess up YET AGAIN! :laugh1:

Try this on for size:

The NFL does not want to deprive it's fans of seeing their HOTTEST superstar
on the verge of greatness.

He's a bad mutha :storm: and everyone want's to see his gameday HITS.

 

[zrinkill]

Try this on for size:

The NFL does not want to deprive it's fans of seeing their HOTTEST superstar
on the verge of greatness.

He's a bad mutha :storm: and everyone want's to see his gameday HITS.

Yay another Commander troll .......

 

[BigDFan5]

Try this on for size:

The NFL does not want to deprive it's fans of seeing their HOTTEST superstar
on the verge of greatness.

He's a bad mutha :storm: and everyone want's to see his gameday HITS.

Ok so they dont want to deprive fans of the hottest superstar, but why didnt they suspend Sean Taylor?

 

[AbeBeta]

I know its not automatic but combined with the DUI, the spitting incident, 17k in fines last year, and skipping the symposium you would think maybe they would want to punish him to prove a point. I mean hell they are taking 4 game checks away but will give 2 back at the end of the year if he doesnt mess up YET AGAIN! :laugh1:

yeah, but he wasn't convicted in the DUI - so that simply can't factor in. no conviction in that case means that legally he didn't do anything wrong. also, he served a team imposed suspension for the arrest as well.

 

[BigDFan5]

yeah, but he wasn't convicted in the DUI - so that simply can't factor in. no conviction in that case means that legally he didn't do anything wrong. also, he served a team imposed suspension for the arrest as well.

Ok even if you subtract that he has been in plenty of trouble, been fined, kept being an idiot, got fined again, and again, and again. So now what do they do to punish him? They fine him and then say they will rebate half :laugh1:

 

[kTXe]

Michael Pittman tried to murder his wife and child by ramming their car with his. Jamal Lewis is a Cocaine drug lord.

Holy overstatements, Batman!







Let's see...if Pittman is an attempted murderer and Jamal Lewis is a drug lord...Taylor must be Kim Jong Il. Right?

 

[ghost]

Roy is better than Taylor.







PERIOD!!!!!

he's better at getting burned....

 

[zrinkill]

he's better at getting burned....

Yet another Commander Troll ...... Man, Commanders have got as many trolls as they have 3rd string recievers ...........

 

[BigDFan5]

he's better at getting burned....

Name 5 times he has been burned, and dont be like the other uninformed trolls and try to mention Washington when everyone with football intelligence knows those plays were not his responsibility

 

[AdamJT13]

he's better at getting burned....

Actually, Taylor is.

 

[CrazyCowboy]

Once a saint......always a deadskin

 

[MossBurner]

Not only is that probably league policy, it is also the policy of most courts. When a defendant pleads no contest, the judge admonishes the defendant telling him that the judge has the right to find the defendant guilty or not guilty. Basically 99% of the time, the judge finds the defendant guilty after a no contest plea.

Oh and contrary to what MossBurner would have you think, the DA doesn't have to PROVE anything for a judge to find a defendant "guilty" when he pleads no contest

Look at the big picture of this case, instead of legal details. The DJ/DA (before being fired) offered Sean a plea of no jail time on a triple-felony charge if he would plead guilty to two misdemeanors - Sean declined a chance at no trial b/c he said he wouldn't plead guilty to something he didn't do. The DA that took over the case after the DJ was suspended reviewed the case for a few weeks and offered Sean a similar deal (no contest plea). Do you think the prosecution wanted to avoid a trial? Maybe, just maybe, he was innocent. We'll never know, though. Sean accepted this deal at the advice of his attorneys to avoid any risk associated with a trial as well as the inconvenience of missing any work.

 

[MossBurner]

I know its not automatic but combined with the DUI, the spitting incident, 17k in fines last year, and skipping the symposium you would think maybe they would want to punish him to prove a point. I mean hell they are taking 4 game checks away but will give 2 back at the end of the year if he doesnt mess up YET AGAIN! :laugh1:

But what has he ever been convicted of?!?

Spitting - fine
Skipping rookie symposium unexcused for a funeral - fine

 

[MossBurner]

Ok even if you subtract that he has been in plenty of trouble, been fined, kept being an idiot, got fined again, and again, and again. So now what do they do to punish him? They fine him and then say they will rebate half :laugh1:

Like it or not, that's all they can do.

 

[burmafrd]

They could have suspended him- probably should have. Maybe he might learn to behave. BUT I DOUBT IT. Once a THUG, always a THUG.
Really does not matter- since he will do something stupid again and violate his probation. Just a matter of time.

 

[AbeBeta]

But what has he ever been convicted of?!?

Spitting - fine
Skipping rookie symposium unexcused for a funeral - fine

These aren't criminal offenses. They are completely irrelevant to decisions made regarding off the field behavior because they don't show a pattern.

Now if Taylor were to spit on another player, you can bet the stuff above would be relevant to a suspension decision -- but I doubt his off the field stuff would impact that decision.

 

[superpunk]

But what has he ever been convicted of?!?

Refusing to take a blood alcohol test.