The NFL has another option to get what they want

[Ghost12]

At this point, my biggest worry is that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (CA5) agrees with the NFL regarding the matter of ripeness. Wallach just posted a transcript. My understanding is:

1) Elliott filed his motion after the arbitration hearing but before the arbitrator's decision.

2) NFL says you cannot do that. The case is not ripe (i.e. ready for the court system) until after the arbitrator's decision.

3) Mazzant disagrees with NFL. Elliott is petitioning on the basis of faulty arbitration procedure. He doesn't have to wait for the decision itself to contest the unfair procedure. From the transcript: Mazzant: "The issue's ripe for me, at least for the purposes of the record ... those issues are already decided for this Court, in terms of examining whether that's fundamentally fair or not."

This is the point that concerns me the most. CA5 may not necessarily sign on to this line of thinking and just throw the whole thing out. I don't think it'll happen, but it does concern me.

 

[blindzebra]

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.

They had it in the DV report so they can't.

 

[shabazz]

That was not "assault" or "DV"..

That bra was assaulted. Girlie was packin.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

It's only assault if she complains.

What people don't understand is that a lot of it depends on jurisdiction, but more importantly that it was not a felony.

If it was a felony and since it was recorded for the world to see, EE would have been arrested. You're just not going to get by with a felony that law enforcement witnessed because the 'victim' didn't complain.

Now if it wasn't witnessed...it's a different ball game.

I've talked to a judge, numerous attorneys and cops that are friends of mine about this and they all said the same thing...it's a misdemeanor. And depending on jurisdiction, it would either be considered misdemeanor indecent exposure or misdemeanor battery (I just was told that assault vs. battery has wide ranging definitions depending on jurisdiction).

Either way it's a misdemeanor. But many people here and the EE haters (not saying on this forum, but anywhere in general) are either claiming or implicating EE of committing felony assault on the St. Patrick's Day girl and it's simply not true. And it has nothing to do with her not complaining. It's just not a felony in any way, shape or form.




YR

 

[Yakuza Rich]

The NFL is likely to try and get the NFLPA on either some procedural error or try and explain to Mazzant that he overstepped his bounds, first. I generally think 'good luck with that' on the latter. Yes, it will anger Mazzant, but in the NFL's puny little minds it's worth a shot.

My belief is that the NFL will win in the end mainly because they've never lost a case like this in the end. And I'm guessing they'll argue that they had the right to suspend EE because they found him not credible and that his perceived lack of credibility is all they needed to suspend him. Don't shoot the messenger.




YR

 

[blindzebra]

The NFL is likely to try and get the NFLPA on either some procedural error or try and explain to Mazzant that he overstepped his bounds, first. I generally think 'good luck with that' on the latter. Yes, it will anger Mazzant, but in the NFL's puny little minds it's worth a shot.

My belief is that the NFL will win in the end mainly because they've never lost a case like this in the end. And I'm guessing they'll argue that they had the right to suspend EE because they found him not credible and that his perceived lack of credibility is all they needed to suspend him. Don't shoot the messenger.




YR

The thing to remember about Elliott's credibility is that it was based strictly on how Friel chose to define the relationship between TT and EE. It is in the record that she found Elliott not credible because he would not refer to Thompson as his girlfriend. Based on all we have seen the relationship can be called a lot of things, but typical boyfriend/girlfriend it wasn't. I would hope any independent party looking at it would see right through Friel's BS and not punish Elliott based on an uptight, middle-aged, prude's idea of what their relationship was.

 

[Doomsday101]

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.

Not sure how that would look for the NFL at this point, if they were going to play this card then it should have been done from the beginning. Doing it now only makes the NFL look even more inept and petty.

 

[Verdict]

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.

The NFL could punish him because it was done in public which is independent of whether it was an assault or not.