DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Deshawn Watson News

I remember Evel Kellnieval...

None is more blind than those who do not wish to see.

The football idolatry of some and the lengths to which they will go frightens me.

Somebody has a bad case of denial. He is all of those things and it will never be forgotten here. And don't pretend that wasn't one of your sideways sneak attacks on something I said. You're ridiculous and hilarious to watch operate. there's a tear for your victimhood.

Why such a strong reaction to this statement? I see NOTHING wrong with what he said. But you do you. Also, very telling.

[/quote] Actually, I think the issue is that he paid them and they did it consensually. (examples were shown given via texts messages him rebooking with them, and their friends or family members stories these women shared with the family members or friends).



So, it actually turns into more of a prostitution case and all of these women are guaranteed jail sentences if it goes to court.

That's why all of them have to settle and it's a much more challenging case for the NFL to sift through.[/quote]

Actually, I have made this point as a contention in the whole matter a number of times. The issue I have with your comment that these women would be guaranteed jail sentences if it goes to court as a prostitution defense is not totally accurate.

Texas Penal Code 43.021
First offense for soliciting prostitution is a state jail felony that carries a maximum fine of $10,000 and a maximum jail sentence of 2 years.
Second offense for soliciting prostitution is a third-degree felony that carries a maximum fine of $10,000 and a maximum jail sentence of 10 years.
Soliciting someone under the age of 18 is a second-degree felony that carries a maximum fine of $10,000 and a maximum jail sentence of 20 years.

The specifics of solicitation
People are often surprised that they can be arrested for solicitation before money has even been exchanged. In fact, they only have to offer or agree to engage in paid sexual conduct to be charged with solicitation. The exact terms by which this transaction is defined are exceptionally vague and are designed to aid the police in making arrests. You must only demonstrate the intent to solicit prostitution in order to be picked up and booked. Some examples of evidence that can be used to establish intent to solicit prostitution include:

Having a sex worker enter your car
Driving to a location wherein paid sex will take place (Watson has sworn under oath that he has driven to the location)
Withdrawing money from an ATM
Offering to engage in sex for money

The settlements that the women accepted to "so call" protect themselves from a criminal charge of prostitution is less likely than Watson not wanting to have the felony charges applied to him if prostitution is exposed during the civil trials. Remember, Watson is the person who reached out and initiated contact with the women, not the other way around.

I said from the beginning that this would appear to be a situation where Watson was solicitating prostitution but had some women not want to be willing participants. Watson has admitted to consensual sex with a number of the women which he paid. That's the bare bones definition of solicitation and should be charged accordingly but I'm sure the Watson supporters have an excuse why this shouldn't apply to him either.

Anyway, I agree with your post to an extent. I think Watson has more to lose than the women if prostitution became or becomes a talking point so he was eager to settle.

Yep. And if she does issue a suspension, specifically less than a year, Goodell will be under incredible pressure to increase it unless the position of the NFL was complete BS. Judge Robinson could land anywhere from no punishment to an indefinite suspension. Goodell's acceptance of anything less than a year will be telling unless he has no choice but to accept a no-punishment ruling.

DW missing as much of the season as possible but still accruing a year would hit the Browns the hardest. I will be shocked if there is no punishment, maybe even a little outraged at the process. A long suspension where DW does not accrue a year will hit Both DW and the Browns hard. I think the first scenario plays out; max number of games that still allow the year to count against DW's contract. The NFL doesn't seem too torn up over any of it.

So you would completely dismiss the ONLY non biased person of authority to have seen ALL the evidence just because she might rule in a ay you do not want???? WOW....

Frankly out of ALL the people involved in this Judge Robinson's opinion should mean the most....If she brings down the hammer....That is good news and then I hope they go after Watson even more fervently. If she goes the opposite spectrum and says no or extremely little punishment. Then That is good news for Browns football and I think it speaks volumes as to a weakness of the accusations and evidence. Does that mean nothing happened...of course not...But WHAT happened and how egregious is certainly in question and it should lean in Watson's favor...

Concerning a small suspension....Yes the NFL can appeal. BUT...it would be a dangerous precedent for a couple reasons. The league has been under fire for its unfair and unpredictable treatment of players in terms of punishment. It was the whole reason to bring in Robinson. and it is not a good look to overturn her first decision. especially a ruling in a sexually charged case being ruled upon BY A WOMAN. Secondly, I think ANY appeal of Robinson's decision will bring about the lawsuits by NFLPA which is also dangerous for the NFL as it will be forced to bring out information in court concerning the investigations into the Owners...Something they certainly do not want to do...I mentioned before that the league is in a no win situation.

Again. if Judge Robinson brings down the Hammer...let's declare Watson hunting season open...She being the ONLY person of authority to hear BOTH sides (non biased)...to me..that counts for a lot.

jc

we have to remember that the judge is ruling based on the conduct policy, not the actual cases.

and the fact that like a normal court proceeding, she is gonna make the nfl prove guilt instead of watson proving innocence might mean watson gets no games. remember, the nfl provide next to nothing in actual evidence for the personal conduct policy.

so i get why people are still focused on the actual cases. but when it comes to whether DW is actually gonna play or not, it comes down to how solid the NFL's case against watson and the policy is or isn't.

so from a football perspective, it'd be great if he's able to start week 1.

I have been saying this is essential for a long time. No way does the NFL want the courts to ask for disclosure on the inner workings of the league. To piggyback off of that, people are speculating that the league hasn't punished Snyder more because they are afraid he will make the indiscretions of other owners public knowledge.

Absolutely true...she is ruling based upon an interpretation of the Code of Conduct Policy...Although the code of conduct policy does have a much lower standard of actions, made by the defendant, that can be punished, than a criminal or civil case...I would think...

But I think more important than the ruling will be the written opinion after...

I think the fact that there isn't a cross examining of the accusers is a very important point. It's hard to be fair to the defense w/out this right.

I am not so sure that an appeal by the NFL is unlikely, though.

Another great point...the lack of cross examination "could" be reason to hold a more favorable view of Watson IF the punishment is light or none at all.

But I still think a heavy suspension, despite lack of cross examination holds a lot of merit as they are basically looking for a better than 50/50 chance something happened...and a heavy suspension would sound like it was much more than a 50/50 situation...

j/c:

I don't know what the pecking order would be for the Judge Robinson in determining her decision, but I wonder if the fact the NFL can unilaterally change her ruling to essentially anything THEY want with an appeal (from either side) simply by handing out any fine/suspension weighs on her in terms of a decision. I guess more to the point, that her choice would not be taken as firm or legit knowing anything handed down can be changed with a biased process fully handled by the NFL.

I don't imagine this is a heavy thought, but I do think it is being considered.

Well put. I'm 100% on board with this (FWIW).

I'm trying to interpret some of the articles/statements that are coming out regarding this process. Obviously it's not a real court of law, but it seems like it's going to follow a lot of the rules and practices that do occur inside of a courtroom. This disciplinary process will be closer to an actual civil trial than any NFL punishment before.

That's a good point. I've been wondering about that, as well.

Where it gets murky is that Ben was investigated for actual rape, with a corroborative police report. Watson - while the quantity is greater, the actual offense did not rise to that level. On the other hand, one thing I'm sure is that Watson's attorneys will argue for Robert Kraft as more pertinent precedent (who also had a police report and an actual criminal charge, I believe). That also has to be something Goodell is considering. Should the judge implement a suspension, he would have to consider the disparity of extending Watson's suspension, while pretty much staying silent on Kraft.

It's a pretty complex scenario.

What I'm still hung up on (and maybe you can provide some clarity, even from a theoretical/hypothetical perspective) on the thing I was banging on yesterday (preponderance of evidence when no evidence of coercion was put forward). One theory is that statement is a poor interpretation on what was going on behind closed doors, but (personally and IMO) I find that harder to believe.

I've brought that up as well. What does "no evidence presented" actually mean in a situation where it was always just a He Said-She Said case. Is that just a reporter stirring the pot by stating the obvious that there was no evidence presented because there was never anything but accuser testimony and defendant testimony, or does that seemingly empty statement actually hold substance, somehow?


The other thing that I think people are getting hung up on is the need for the case against Watson to actually show real guilt and not just merely the perception of guilt.
After all, this is a Personal Conduct Policy. It isn't nearly as stringent as a civil case, and its definition spells out exceptionally broad and vague parameters like "bringing unwanted attention to the league", etc... That attention, and that criteria, have already been met. At this point, I would think that it would almost require a complete vindication of Watson for there not to be SOME sort of suspension, and I don't think the P.R. Dept of the NFL wants to even try dipping their toe in those waters.

In the end, the end of this week cannot come soon enough. All of the guessing games can hopefully, finally, end and we can move onto debating the (in)correctness of whatever decision there is.

It was originally reported by Florio. IMO, he's a pretty straight-shooter, and his stance on Watson doesn't dissuade me from taking the quote at face value. I can understand people's hesitation to just accept everything we're hearing on the subject, but I dunno about this nugget. Like I said in another response, I'll be really disappointed/annoyed if that statement came out of a really bad take.

I do have to keep reminding myself of this, but at the same time the articles that are coming out about the process that's going on right now make it seem like it's made a huge shift towards functioning more like an actual court (probably because it's being led by a former judge instead of Goodell or one of his minions).

Hopefully I'm understanding what you and Prp are saying, but I think my line of thinking coincides with Prp in that we don't really know what the threshold is. Will she be operating under a "preponderance" mindset, or is it more of a "scintilla" of poor personal conduct? I don't know the answer to that, likely based on my ignorance of both the process and what threshold is established in the NFL's own policies.

With that said, in a preponderance scenario, you would not be doing yourself any favors to not proffer any evidence of something that was being asserted. If the threshold is much lower than that (the "PR threshold" we'll call it), then I think they can mail it in and/or beat around the bush more by asserting "hey, this is a bad look no matter what," but that still seems to be a rather bold and stupid move from my vantage point. I honestly don't know why the NFL would go that route unless they're hoping for a home run scenario of having someone outside of the NFL refuse a suspension, get a money maker on the field, and put the NFL in a position where they could just throw their hands up and say "We tried, but it's not within our control now. Sorry."

I feel like I usually have some inkling of what is going to happen - right or wrong - but this is one scenario where I am completely without an inclination of what to expect.

What was your initial reaction to that statement "no evidence of coercion (etc.) was submitted" (I'm paraphrasing)?

Yeah, you would think that if she's not specifically directed into a certain threshold to consider that she would default to "preponderance," but in that scenario, it would make leaving out the assertion that much dumber of a move for the NFL, I think at least.

Similar to yours (shocker I know), I think. Came from a rather credible source, but I remain skeptical just based on a common sense consideration of how I would conduct the case if I was an NFL attorney.

We have no idea what she will rule, she could come up with some new system to give more consistency and uniformity to penalties for transgressions going forward, and not take any previous issues into account for HER system.

Is Sue Robinson the person for just the Watson punishment, or is she the person for all of these situations going forward (did they name her as the NFL Punishment Queen, or is there someone that tapped for each situation)?

Then a new judge will take over after her, and then he/she will have a different lens of interpretation, and before you know it, we'll have another thread about the NFL judicial doctrine in Palus Politicus

Who it came from holds little value. The fact remains that the structure of the statement in the context of the case leaves a LOT of ambiguity and it may very easily not mean anything as significant as some folks have been portraying it to mean. At the same time, it could... though, if so, then that raises questions about the NFL and why they didn't present more. Quite simply, if you consider testimony/depositions to be evidence, we've seen plenty of evidence of at least coercion posted in these threads. However, if the statement is talking about evidence outside of testimony/depositions, then it is an entirely empty and meaningless statement as all of this was never anything other than that, which is the entire crux of everything to begin with.

This is why I just keep shaking my head every time I see someone parrot the "they presented no evidence" bit, and I feel like I'm the only one seeing the problems inherent in that.. no matter which way that statement goes.

-59 seconds ago

-1 minute ago


It's kinda scary how we're on the same wavelength.

It's just because I'm out in the tree in your yard watching what you type.

I'm almost sure that Sue Robinson is the permanent Queen of Punishment.

First let's be clear on what the accusations are against Watson compared to Big Ben. Big Ben was accused of rape by the alleged single (1) victim but there wasn't enough evidence to charge him, so no indictment was ever issued by the GJ. Watson was investigated for sexual assault and sexual misconduct. Texas Law defines sexual assault as one of three types of sexual acts the person intentionally or knowingly ((A) causes the penetration of the anus or sexual organ of another person by any means, without that person’s consent, (B) causes the penetration of the mouth of another person by the sexual organ of the actor, without that person’s consent, or (C) causes the sexual organ of another person, without that person’s consent, to contact or penetrate the mouth, anus, or sexual organ of another person, including the actor; or. These acts are committed without the consent of one of the parties, or when a victim was not able to give consent. Watson has been accused of 2 cases of sexual assault by two alleged victims. The GJ did not see enough evidence to bring an indictment even though the police officers are on record of saying it was a good case. According to Buzbee, the sexual assault allegations are part of the 4 civil claims that are still active. Then there are the 24 alleged sexual misconduct civil suit claims against Watson of which Big Ben had none. Though Watson has settled 20 of these misconduct claims out of court, the NFL is more interested in the damage to the integrity of the game due to the high number of accusations, not innocence or guilt. Watson has had 26 different accusations (2 sexual abuse and 24 sexual misconduct) compared to Ben's one alleged accusation.


In Goodell's letter to Roethlisberger on his suspension:

"The Personal Conduct Policy makes clear that I may impose discipline 'even where the conduct does not result in conviction of a crime' as, for example, where the conduct 'imposes inherent danger to the safety and well-being of another person,' " Goodell stated in his letter to Roethlisberger.

"As the District Attorney concluded, the extensive investigatory record shows that you contributed to the irresponsible consumption of alcohol by purchasing [or facilitating the purchase of] alcoholic beverages for underage college students, at least some of whom were likely already intoxicated. There is no question that the excessive consumption of alcohol that evening put the students and yourself at risk. The Personal Conduct Policy also states that discipline is appropriate for conduct that 'undermines or puts at risk the integrity and reputation of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL players.' By any measure, your conduct satisfies that standard."

"I recognize that the allegations in Georgia were disputed and that they did not result in criminal charges being filed against you. My decision today is not based on a finding that you violated Georgia law, or on a conclusion that differs from that of the local prosecutor. That said, you are held to a higher standard as an NFL player, and there is nothing about your conduct in Milledgeville that can remotely be described as admirable, responsible, or consistent with either the values of the league or the expectations of our fans."

"Your conduct raises sufficient concerns that I believe effective intervention now is the best step for your personal and professional welfare."

"I believe it is essential that you take full advantage of the resources available to you. My ultimate disposition in this matter will be influenced by the extent to which you do so, what you learn as a result, and a demonstrated commitment to making positive change in your life."

"In your six years in the NFL, you have first thrilled and now disappointed a great many people. I urge you to take full advantage of this opportunity to get your life and career back on track."


If you are honest and look at the case against Watson as an NFL PCP violation rather than a criminal trial (which it is not) and compare it to Big Ben, Watson's conduct, though not criminal at this time, is significantly worse than Big Ben's by a country mile. One event compared to 24 events with 26 alleged accusations far outweighs what Big Ben was alleged to have done. That is why the NFL has requested an indefinite suspension with a minimum of a year. Judge Robinson is not supposed to be judging Watson's innocence or guilt on the alleged accusations but rather if his conduct warrants discipline under the league agreement in relation to the PCP.

See, I didn't see it that way. IMO (so this could just be my ignorance on this type of stuff in general), is that knowing what is and isn't evidence would be a pretty black-and-white thing in these types of proceedings. It honestly didn't initially occur to me that this could be such a subjective statement.

I only mentioned the source because Florio is generally a straight shooter, was definitely NOT someone who was trying to push a pro-Watson agenda, and has a legal background. As far as reported leaks go, this (again, IMO) is probably going to be as solid as we get.

What's the safe word?

Onomatopoeia.

I planted that red maple seedling last year.... it better still be standing when I get home!

When it comes to the law, words are everything, and how sentences are structured mean a LOT.

Again, I acknowledge that this could go either way, BUT, I see a problem with it no matter which way it goes.
If testimony/depositions are evidence and no evidence was presented, then WHY NOT when we've seen plenty presented publicly.
If testimony/deposition is not considered evidence, then Why bother with that Captain Obvious statement - unless it's simply to bolster his 180-degree turn on the matter (since he started off being all negative, then switched to a full-court press on "Free Watson"). Hell, is he being paid by the team as part of their announced "campaign to repair his image"?