Watson Suspended for 11 Games and Fined $5 Million / and a bit OT and back.

DieHardBrownsFan1

@westside-steve said:

Well after all the Sound and Fury it's going to be what it is. No point losing sleep over Baker. I'm guessing six games slap on the wrist for Watson? If that's the case Roethlisberger Hunt Etc should be furious.

But die-hard as long as we are hoping I hope he gets an indefinite suspension that eventually goes to Miami or Atlanta we rescind the deal the Houston Texans have to give back the draft picks and accept a censure Jimmy Haslam is forced to sell the team to Cleveland interests and the Browns go to the Super Bowl behind Jimmy Garoppolo.

???

WSS

Nah. I hope he gets nothing and takes us to a superbowl.

nickers

@diehardbrownsfan1 said:

Nah. I hope he gets nothing and takes us to a superbowl.

I hope they hammer him hard and he never sets foot on the field... Hes a chump!

gumby73

@gumby73 said:

Time for me to jump on a plane ? and leave this ____________ transaction action for 10 days ? (i may miss nothing? ?)

What'd I win?

IMG_20220702_140537163_HDR.jpg.e5e3a6b3649d460ec26269be35666734.jpg the Pike division ?

getting this gut feeling... the NFL wants more games than Ben got suspended.. 8 games... gets Watson 9 games, with our bye week falling on week 9

A players union happy (games suspended) non appeal number? Nah ! I don't see one...

Westside Steve

@sdbacker80 said:

So you roll with Baker in 2022?

A rookie in 2023? (And trade three 1st round picks to move up!!!)

Hold your breath in 2024 that the rookie panned out?

Meanwhile Chubb, Ward, Garrett and Co get older or demand trades to super bowl contending teams.

Big picture thinking.

1 yes. It's my contention that the team will be great and contend for a Super Bowl with a healthy Baker. And with the extra draft picks and with the changes we have made to the team and without the problems of 2021.

And if I'm right who cares about a rookie next year?

And all those things the Aging of the players the bigger contracts offered by other teams will still be a problem in 2022 and 2023.

WSS

FY56

@laiccm said:

then WTF are we talking about? Think about that......this is ridiculous

Seriously? Can't believe people are still having a hard time with this.

It's been established a long time ago by 2 grand juries that Watsons engaged in no criminal activity. That should be no surprise to you.

Watson is facing charges in civil court which makes him subject to punishment by the NFL for violating the league's personal behavior policy.

The Difference Between Civil Sexual Assault and Criminal Sexual Assault (jsberrylaw.com)

Ben Roethlesbooger was never charged with a crime either. The case was thrown out by the prosecutor. He did however receive a 6-game suspension reduced to 4 for violating the league's personal behavior policy.

Take note of all the suspensions due to either violation of the league's personal conduct policy or personal behavior detrimental to the team.

List of players and coaches suspended by the NFL | American Football Database | Fandom

Westside Steve

@fy56 said:

Seriously? Can't believe people are still having a hard time with this.

It's been established a long time ago by 2 grand juries that Watsons engaged in no criminal activity. That should be no surprise to you.

Watson is facing charges in civil court which makes him subject to punishment by the NFL for violating the league's personal behavior policy.

The Difference Between Civil Sexual Assault and Criminal Sexual Assault (jsberrylaw.com)

Ben Roethlesbooger was never charged with a crime either. The case was thrown out by the prosecutor. He did however receive a 6-game suspension reduced to 4 for violating the league's personal behavior policy.

Take note of all the suspensions due to either violation of the league's personal conduct policy or personal behavior detrimental to the team.

List of players and coaches suspended by the NFL | American Football Database | Fandom

The pass by the grand jury didn't State there was no criminal activity just that they didn't think it was worth the time to prosecute each and every case. Also apparently the ones who claimed he grabbed their hand and put it on his weiner have settled. That doesn't mean he didn't do it it just means that the amount of money was okay for them to let it slide. Which means they weren't permanently traumatized. Like my mechanic Buddy says nothing wrong with it that money can't fix.

WSS

5150k9

@westside-steve said:

The pass by the grand jury didn't State there was no criminal activity just that they didn't think it was worth the time to prosecute each and every case. Also apparently the ones who claimed he grabbed their hand and put it on his weiner have settled. That doesn't mean he didn't do it it just means that the amount of money was okay for them to let it slide. Which means they weren't permanently traumatized. Like my mechanic Buddy says nothing wrong with it that money can't fix.

WSS

WSS, not to argue, but your supposition on the Grand jury's decision is wrong. I have testified in my career in front of several grand juries and have worked with several District Attorneys as the lead investigator. If a DA goes to the grand jury He/She believes it's worth prosecuting. All a Grand Jury is presented or hears is the Prosecutions case such as (Investigators/witness/victims testimony and evidence). The Defense and alleged suspect(s) are not present and have no input in their defense. All the grand jury decides is "if the prosecution presented a case where the evidence(testimony,Physical evidence) is met to proceed to an indictment and criminal trial. They don't decide if it's worth the time. A grand jury hearing is usually a slam dunk for the prosecution because the defense isn't heard. There is a saying " You can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich." It isn't far off, and yet 2 grand juries in 2 different counties said there wasn't anything to proceed with criminal charges.

TexasAg1969

@5150k9 said:

WSS, not to argue, but your supposition on the Grand jury's decision is wrong. I have testified in my career in front of several grand juries and have worked with several District Attorneys as the lead investigator. If a DA goes to the grand jury He/She believes it's worth prosecuting. All a Grand Jury is presented or hears is the Prosecutions case such as (Investigators/witness/victims testimony and evidence). The Defense and alleged suspect(s) are not present and have no input in their defense. All the grand jury decides is "if the prosecution presented a case where the evidence(testimony,Physical evidence) is met to proceed to an indictment and criminal trial. They don't decide if it's worth the time. A grand jury hearing is usually a slam dunk for the prosecution because the defense isn't heard. There is a saying " You can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich." It isn't far off, and yet 2 grand juries in 2 different counties said there wasn't anything to proceed with criminal charges.

A voice of sanity in the wilderness of the Browns Board. ?

hoorta

@texasag1969 said:

A voice of sanity in the wilderness of the Browns Board. ?

And the Texans with their far deeper pockets than Deshawn.... Told Busbee.... How much you need to make this go away? Case settled. The four hold outs against Deshawn are holding out for more to make them happy.

Westside Steve

@texasag1969 said:

A voice of sanity in the wilderness of the Browns Board. ?

Not really. They didn't indict because they didn't think the prosecutor could prove the cases.* All were her word against his. Maybe all of those dames are lying whores and that's what the supporters have to believe. And if you guys are right the underlying problem is that over a third of the 60 some potential victims were willing to destroy a man's life and career for no seeming reason.

I guess you need to decide which scenario has the Ring Of Truth to it.

WSS

* even though it would stand to reason that at least one or more separate juries in separate trials would have gone the other way.

TexasAg1969

@westside-steve said:

Not really.

WSS

I think I will take K9's experience with Grand juries over your opinion on this one. Now if you want to show him how to sing and play for a living, you got it hands down every time.?

5150k9

@texasag1969 said:

I think I will take K9's experience with Grand juries over your opinion on this one. Now if you want to show him how to sing and play for a living, you got it hands down every time.?

I can't sing(only solo in the shower) or play an instrument so I'll defer to WSS.

Westside Steve

@texasag1969 said:

I think I will take K9's experience with Grand juries over your opinion on this one. Now if you want to show him how to sing and play for a living, you got it hands down every time.?

Believe whatever you want.

WSS

TexasAg1969

@westside-steve said:

Believe whatever you want.

WSS

Well I do believe your music is very good...............so there's that.?

Unsympathetic

@westside-steve said:

Line 1] Not really. They didn't indict because they didn't think the prosecutor could prove the cases.*

Line 2] * even though it would stand to reason that at least one or more separate juries in separate trials would have gone the other way.

1) If the prosecutor doesn't prove the case to the grand jury in order to achieve an indictment, they definitely won't be able to prove the case in a trial to achieve a conviction. Indictment is easier..

2) No, it absolutely would not "stand to reason" that a trial jury would go any other way.

a] The grand jury pool is the same pool as the trial pool. They're not different people.

b] At no point is it fathomable that a trial jury would Go A Different Way. Trial jury definitely won't consider all evidence 100% accurate, trial jury won't see all the evidence that a grand jury sees.

I spent 7 months of my life [3 days a week, 5 hours each of those days] on a grand jury looking at every case completed by the county in that time -- from misdemeanor drug all the way up to manslaughters. People on grand juries take the role seriously -- if we're going to be away from our normal world and take on this role, the DA needs to bring the A game. And our grand jury indicted on 99% of cases in front of us -- the DA really has to be wildly off-base to not get an indictment because the role of the grand jury is not to question the evidence.

Westside Steve

@unsympathetic said:

1) If the prosecutor doesn't prove the case to the grand jury in order to achieve an indictment, they definitely won't be able to prove the case in a trial to achieve a conviction. Indictment is easier..

2) No, it absolutely would not "stand to reason" that a trial jury would go any other way.

a] The grand jury pool is the same pool as the trial pool. They're not different people.

b] At no point is it fathomable that a trial jury would Go A Different Way. Trial jury definitely won't consider all evidence 100% accurate, trial jury won't see all the evidence that a grand jury sees.

I spent 7 months of my life [3 days a week, 5 hours each of those days] on a grand jury looking at every case completed by the county in that time -- from misdemeanor drug all the way up to manslaughters. People on grand juries take the role seriously -- if we're going to be away from our normal world and take on this role, the DA needs to bring the A game. And our grand jury indicted on 99% of cases in front of us -- the DA really has to be wildly off-base to not get an indictment because the role of the grand jury is not to question the evidence.

I think some of you guys are arguing points I never made. And there are two separate discussion lines. The first was my contention, drawn from a YouTube video with sports guys talking about it, that the prosecutors in Texas didn't want to waste all that time. Canine believes otherwise. Fair enough. Moving on:

1 I have no doubt the evidence presented to the grand jury was not up to the standard needed to go forward with criminal prosecution. He said she said without solid evidence is a problem. Nobody wants to see a completely innocent man railroaded.

2 if the 30 cases had gone to court with 30 different juries I wouldn't bet that each and everyone would go his way. Beyond that it would most certainly take up a horrendous amount of the Court's time it could quite possibly drag on seemingly forever.

3 isn't a matter of fact or legality. Everybody has to decide for himself whether to believe that every one of these women is lying. I guess you can ask yourself why all these women who knew Watson fairly well would want to destroy his life and career by fabricating a story. That seems evil to me.

4 See #1. The grand jury didn't see enough solid evidence to go forward. That neither prove nor disprove anyting. That's all.

WSS

ballpeen

All the women had to do was stop the session. They didn't.

nickers

@ballpeen said:

All the women had to do was stop the session. They didn't.

Great point...

SdBacker80

@westside-steve said:

I think some of you guys are arguing points I never made. And there are two separate discussion lines. The first was my contention, drawn from a YouTube video with sports guys talking about it, that the prosecutors in Texas didn't want to waste all that time. Canine believes otherwise. Fair enough. Moving on:

1 I have no doubt the evidence presented to the grand jury was not up to the standard needed to go forward with criminal prosecution. He said she said without solid evidence is a problem. Nobody wants to see a completely innocent man railroaded.

2 if the 30 cases had gone to court with 30 different juries I wouldn't bet that each and everyone would go his way. Beyond that it would most certainly take up a horrendous amount of the Court's time it could quite possibly drag on seemingly forever.

3 isn't a matter of fact or legality. Everybody has to decide for himself whether to believe that every one of these women is lying. I guess you can ask yourself why all these women who knew Watson fairly well would want to destroy his life and career by fabricating a story. That seems evil to me.

4 See #1. The grand jury didn't see enough solid evidence to go forward. That neither prove nor disprove anyting. That's all.

WSS

So you want the Prosecutor to unbundle each case and present 12 different cases in the hope of bringing 12 bills of indictment and you believe there is more attention on each and Watson should have 12 eventual separate days in court- as some kind of special justice owed towards these allegations?

And I said 12 not 30. The Prosecutor didn’t present 30 cases. It can be surmised that Only 12 were deemed worthy/appropriate to be heard after months of investigation. The Prosecutors were privy to a lot of information for months that none of us had including the media.

On 3, you don’t think the prospect of financial gain could bring about fabrication? And you are an intelligent guy and from what I guess an elder to many of us here - have you witnessed or even heard of evil being done for financial gain? Lots of folks these days are certainly out for themselves.

On 4, it proves that a criminal proceeding and charges will not move forward.

SdBacker80

@ballpeen said:

All the women had to do was stop the session. They didn't.

Or call or text back for future services