The NFL has another option to get what they want

[AbeBeta]

The NFL has the potential to still get what they want even if they vacate the suspension and write it off as "mistakes were made".

How? Simple ..

They can re-open the investigation into the shirt-pulled-down incident by Elliott. There's no rule that would prevent that as far as I know. They could treat him pulling the shirt down as "sexual assault" and "domestic violence" and say that despite no criminal charges being filed and lack of victim support, the video provides all of the evidence they need to suspend him.

Not only would that give them an opportunity to suspend him where he would less likely be able to win in court, it would also deflect some of the fallout from the judge's harsh words as part of the injunction and present the perception of a pattern of violence against women by Elliott, that most of the media would love to focus on.

The NFL just has to decide if they want to move on from this or let it linger all season while it is discussed over and over, especially every Cowboys game. It comes down to how bad their desire to "win" now is versus what's best for the NFL long term.

I know bottled water ran out. But clearly, tin foil remains in stock

 

[Nova]

Actually, that is sexual assault .. it could conceivably fall under "domestic violence" as well because he was in a relationship of some kind with the woman.

It isn't if the woman didn't mind and they were both "having fun".

They would need cooperation from her.

One thing that I think gets completely lost in this incident is that the St Patty's day parade in Dallas is an absolute **** show.

I saw a national opinion article recently that mocked Elliott for "confusing a St. Patrick's Day parade for Mardis Gras", but the reality is they aren't really different climates (considering this specific parade).

I don't think most understand the context of the occurrence, and ultimately it's up to the woman in question to make that determination.

 

[Pabst]

Referencing my earlier post, from page #5 of the letter the NFL sent to Elliott re: His suspension:

The Commissioner also has determined that the March 11, 2017, St. Patrick's Day parade incident in Dallas will not be considered separately as a basis for additional discipline under the Policy given the circumstances surrounding the incident. You should understand, however, that your behavior during this event was inappropriate and disturbing, and reflected a lack of respect for women. When viewed together with the July incidents, it suggests a pattern of poor judgement and behavior for which effective intervention is necessary for your personal and professional welfare.

So, yea, that shouldn't be an issue moving forward, assuming he doesn't screw up again.

 

[Reality]

The terms assault has meaning. It is not assault unless she doesn't consent.

Taking your approach they could just suspend him on whim. Sure but that does not mean that what he did on that rooftop can be considered assault unless she did not consent.

Okay, that's why I said "sexual assault" AND "domestic violence". To many women, having a man strip their clothes off would be considered both of those. Sure, the woman may not have cared, but the end result is a man pulled down the shirt of a woman, exposing her breasts not only to a large crowd of people in the area, but as a result of the video, to the entire world.

While the woman may not care, a lot of other women will care. The NFL would definitely have the support of the media and several special interest groups including many focused on women's rights, equality, etc. in their corner.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Okay, that's why I said "sexual assault" AND "domestic violence". To many women, having a man strip their clothes off would be considered both of those. Sure, the woman may not have cared, but the end result is a man pulled down the shirt of a woman, exposing her breasts not only to a large crowd of people in the area, but as a result of the video, to the entire world.

While the woman may not care, a lot of other women will care. The NFL would definitely have the support of the media and several special interest groups including many focused on women's rights, equality, etc. in their corner.

Other women are immaterial as to whether or not it was sexual assault. The difference between sex and sexual assault is consent of the participants.

That people like to get into others business is besides the point.

 

[Reality]

It isn't if the woman didn't mind and they were both "having fun".

They would need cooperation from her.

One thing that I think gets completely lost in this incident is that the St Patty's day parade in Dallas is an absolute **** show.

I saw a national opinion article recently that mocked Elliott for "confusing a St. Patrick's Day parade for Madrid Gras", but the reality is they aren't really different climates (considering this specific parade).

I don't think most understand the context of the occurrence, and ultimately it's up to the woman in question to make that determination.

They don't need cooperation from her in this case because there is video evidence. Again, we're not talking a CRIME here .. we're talking "conduct detrimental to the league" which has a MUCH lower threshold to prove.

Now, I'm not saying the NFL would ultimately win a court battle over it, but if they were to issue a suspension for a second incident, the media would run non-stop with it and it would create the perception of a pattern of abuse/attacks against women. The NFL would put the focus back on Elliott in that situation, whether they ultimately win or lose.

Again, I'm not saying he's guilty of anything. I'm saying the NFL has options. Whether they are smart or good options is subjective in their eyes.

 

[Cowboys22]

Right, but because there are some laws out there that support that, the NFL has a justification to consider that "conduct detrimental to the league." The NFL is not bound by which state it happened in.

Marijuana is legal in Colorado for example, but if a Denver Bronco player's drug test shows he used/smoked marijuana, the NFL can suspend him.

That ship has sailed because they already addressed it. Had they given him 2 games for that and said Thompson was unreliable so no suspension there, everyone would have been fine with it. They have already made their ruling on that issue. It's done and buried. They aren't resurrecting it especially after the beat down they got from the judge. Any ridiculous reaction like you suggest would only serve to prove Kessler's case and would be rejected by any judge.

 

[Reality]

Other women are immaterial as to whether or not it was sexual assault. The difference between sex and sexual assault is consent of the participants.

That people like to get into others business is besides the point.

Again, you are thinking in terms of CRIMINAL act. This is not about crimes. This is about "conduct detrimental to the league." That has no limitations based on crimes.

Keep arguing though because I know you like to argue until you get the last word .. so make it a good one!

 

[Reality]

That ship has sailed because they already addressed it. Had they given him 2 games for that and said Thompson was unreliable so no suspension there, everyone would have been fine with it. They have already made their ruling on that issue. It's done and buried. They aren't resurrecting it especially after the beat down they got from the judge. Any ridiculous reaction like you suggest would only serve to prove Kessler's case and would be rejected by any judge.

The ship hasn't sailed because they never pursued it. They NFL has no limits on revisiting any incident. They can re-open it for any reason including no reason at all. They could simply say, "We closed it because we felt the other case was a priority, and now that the other case is on hold, we are going to refocus on the other incident involving Elliott."

 

[gmoney112]

They've already established cause and set the precedent for the suspension.

Attempting to argue a different cause at this point would likely get the case dismissed entirely because it's erroneous as to the established basis for the ruling that they've signed, stamped, and delivered.

 

[Reality]

I think some people are thinking I'm arguing for this. That's not true at all.

I am simply pointing out that the NFL can still cause problems for Elliott. I'm not saying they are right to do so. I'm not saying they will succeed.

I am simply saying, don't assume this is over for the season yet.

 

[StylisticS]

if they did that, i'd be done.

Yeah I would to I'm afraid.

 

[Nova]

Okay, that's why I said "sexual assault" AND "domestic violence". To many women, having a man strip their clothes off would be considered both of those. Sure, the woman may not have cared, but the end result is a man pulled down the shirt of a woman, exposing her breasts not only to a large crowd of people in the area, but as a result of the video, to the entire world.

While the woman may not care, a lot of other women will care. The NFL would definitely have the support of the media and several special interest groups including many focused on women's rights, equality, etc. in their corner.

It may be true that it would garner attention from special interest groups, but why would the league want to incur that?

This PR issue is behind them because the woman apparently didn't care.

Furthermore, assuming that she didn't care, any special interest group's ire would be hypocritical.

Women aren't helpless and if this woman didn't mind, then that's her decision.

 

[Reality]

They've already established cause and set the precedent for the suspension.

Attempting to argue a different cause at this point would likely get the case dismissed entirely because it's erroneous as to the established basis for the ruling that they've signed, stamped, and delivered.

Different incident, almost a year apart. It's not a "different cause" but a different incident completely. Otherwise, a player suspended for PEDs, marijuana, etc. would never be able to be suspended a second time.

 

[Nova]

By the way, I used the word "ire" in a post which must means the whiskey is working.

Sorry for any dad jokes that may come here in the near future.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Again, you are thinking in terms of CRIMINAL act. This is not about crimes. This is about "conduct detrimental to the league." That has no limitations based on crimes.

Keep arguing though because I know you like to argue until you get the last word .. so make it a good one!

I'm talking in terms of what sexual assault means. The term has a meaning whatever category you want to put it in.

And I know you like to make it personal when you argue with me. Need a tissue? I am not going to apologize because I like to argue. Deal with it.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Actually, that is sexual assault .. it could conceivably fall under "domestic violence" as well because he was in a relationship of some kind with the woman.

It's not sexual assault.

I keep telling people this, but they don't want to listen.

If it were sexual assault, EE would be arrested because it's on camera, clear as day.

At worse, it's indecent exposure or something to the equivalent of that low level crime.

But, since the woman in question was 'fine' with it, there's no crime.

The problem the NFL would have, again, is with the 'unfair' nature of this. They already stated that it wasn't part of this and that he was in the clear with regards to the St. Paddy's Day incident. So to go back on their own written word would be a 'fundamental unfairness' tot he situation.

But again..it wasn't sexual assault. Just like depantsing somebody isn't sexual assault.





YR

 

[CowboyStar88]

Man tough crowd tonight @Reality lol.

Hey everyone it was a hypothetical and with them extending Josh Browns suspension a year later, you could see these scumbags pulling some weird rabbit outta the hat thing. They could absolutely use that against him. Since it was mentioned in the initial report, what's to stop them from going back that under further review it violates the Personal Conduct policy?

 

[Cowboys22]

The ship hasn't sailed because they never pursued it. They NFL has no limits on revisiting any incident. They can re-open it for any reason including no reason at all. They could simply say, "We closed it because we felt the other case was a priority, and now that the other case is on hold, we are going to refocus on the other incident involving Elliott."

Scroll up and read what the league said on the matter. It's a non issue now. They ruled it didn't warrant any action due to the circumstances surrounding the incident. You know what those circumstances are? The fact that the girl said it was okay and the fact that she was flashing the crowd all day.

 

[THEHEREAFTER]

Actually, that is sexual assault .. it could conceivably fall under "domestic violence" as well because he was in a relationship of some kind with the woman.

I get it in terms of "legalese" etc. .. but it's just not. Not if you're looking at context or common sense. Not THAT... Let's move on..