Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍

Sexual Assault Suits Against Watson

thunderkyss said:
Because two no bills mean there isn’t sufficient evidence of any wrongdoing. Add to that 20 have settled without an admission of guilt.

I’ve said time & again I think he’s done something. I don’t know what. & I don’t know if whatever that is violated the personal conduct policy.

Remember Kareem Hunt? They were in the process of sweeping it under the rug when the video came out (I think it was Kareem Hunt). Same thing with Ray Rice.

I mean maybe they can get him for violating COVID protocol but violating personal conduct rule? I’m not seeing it. Not with the “evidence” we have access to.

& not with the bland response we’re getting from women’s groups.

I understand wanting to punish him because he gets more play than we do & his “girlfriend” is fine with that. But objectively from someone who wants him suspended until the last case is settled, I can’t see a reason for the NFL to suspend him.
Click to expand...
I understand. You don't see that the NFL has been drug through the mud for over a year........and will continue to be so until all cases are resolved (and probably long after)............and that a threat has been made against the investigation and its potential decision. OK.
 
thunderkyss said:
Fast?

I’m just saying it’s not as obvious as you’d think. She’s deliberating. That’s what people do when it’s not obvious
Click to expand...
More likely she would be deliberating over whether to recommend a suspension of one year, two years, three years…..Taking her time to deliberate a suspension of the first case of this magnitude and the first case under the guidelines of this new policy.

Even if things are obvious she still has to deliberate, justify her decision, take time to publish her decision. That’s not going to be overnight.

Also, in real life court cases, you can have a preponderance of evidence and such, that doesn’t guide exactly when decisions or rulings are made, especially when motions are filed.
 
djohn2oo8 said:
Also, she still practices law. Who knows if she is handling other cases or litigation at this time.

Sue L. Robinson | Attorney | Farnan LLP | Wilmington, DE

Sue Robinson’s practice focuses on complex commercial litigation, consulting in high stakes litigation, mock trials, and alternative dispute resolution.
www.farnanlaw.com www.farnanlaw.com
Click to expand...
Well, you’ve got a full time job & you’ve already decided. I can understand adding a day or two to her decision because of the high profile nature but, c’mon.
 
thunderkyss said:
Well, you’ve got a full time job & you’ve already decided. I can understand adding a day or two to her decision because of the high profile nature but, c’mon.
Click to expand...
Who ever said she was going to decide before training camp man? No one had a timeline. Blame it on Watson for waiting so late to settle the cases that he did.

Also, there are still active cases. Which could complicate what the suspension may look like.
 
djohn2oo8 said:
Who ever said she was going to decide before training camp man? No one had a timeline. Blame it on Watson for waiting so late to settle the cases that he did.

Also, there are still active cases. Which could complicate what the suspension may look like.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about time lines?

As a layman it appears to me things are not going to end as we hope
 
CloakNNNdagger said:
You don't see that the NFL has been drug through the mud for over a year........and will continue to be so until all cases are resolved (and probably long after)
Click to expand...
The NFL had plenty of mud on them from their own doings prior to Watson's shenanigans. But guess what? They'll make $$$ hand over fist, anyway. Goodell's motto isn't to "Protect the Sheild". It's "Print the Money". And it's much better to put the spotlight on Watson than it is to shine it on Snyder, Jones, Ross, etc.
 
Lucky said:
The NFL had plenty of mud on them from their own doings prior to Watson's shenanigans. But guess what? They'll make $$$ hand over fist, anyway. Goodell's motto isn't to "Protect the Sheild". It's "Print the Money". And it's much better to put the spotlight on Watson than it is to shine it on Snyder, Jones, Ross, etc.
Click to expand...
Have any of those guys had criminal complaints filed against them? 10 complaints? 24 lawsuits? Going into women’s homes insisting they be alone? Begging some of the same women to massage his anus? Allegations of forced sexual intercourse? (Read the lawsuits, there are a few mentioned). Allegations of relieving himself of his bodily fluids onto unwilling participants?
 
Last edited:
By the way, you can complain about it all you want. Snyder may lose his team. Jones, did he even do anything that was alleged to be illegal? Kraft’s situation happened before the current CBA. So, what now.
 
I think the length comes down to how you view his actions vs the Policy. If he broke the policy, which we all assume he did, does it matter how egregious the violation was? There may not be a precedent for the number of lawsuits or women, but there are certainly enough cases to show what the suspension length is for assaulting women. Does the judge feel like he should get extra punishment (outside of saying a few extra games) for the sheer number of women or not? He violated the policy, how many times seems irrelevant to me outside of a small increase in punishment.

That said I think he will get 12 games.
 
Lucky said:
The NFL had plenty of mud on them from their own doings prior to Watson's shenanigans. But guess what? They'll make $$$ hand over fist, anyway. Goodell's motto isn't to "Protect the Sheild". It's "Print the Money". And it's much better to put the spotlight on Watson than it is to shine it on Snyder, Jones, Ross, etc.
Click to expand...


giphy.gif
 
Lucky said:
The NFL had plenty of mud on them from their own doings prior to Watson's shenanigans. But guess what? They'll make $$$ hand over fist, anyway. Goodell's motto isn't to "Protect the Sheild". It's "Print the Money". And it's much better to put the spotlight on Watson than it is to shine it on Snyder, Jones, Ross, etc.
Click to expand...

These are the takes that I don't get.. If the NFL mishandled previous cases in the past, that needs to stop and it needs to stop here. Two wrongs don't make a right. If that's Watson's only argument, it's a weak one.
 
Carr Bombed said:
These are the takes that I don't get.. If the NFL mishandled previous cases in the past, that needs to stop and it needs to stop here. Two wrongs don't make a right. If that's Watson's only argument, it's a weak one.
Click to expand...
But that's the argument that the NFLPA may make in court. And it's all on the NFL for putting themselves in that position.
 
amazing80 said:
I think the length comes down to how you view his actions vs the Policy. If he broke the policy, which we all assume he did, does it matter how egregious the violation was? There may not be a precedent for the number of lawsuits or women, but there are certainly enough cases to show what the suspension length is for assaulting women. Does the judge feel like he should get extra punishment (outside of saying a few extra games) for the sheer number of women or not? He violated the policy, how many times seems irrelevant to me outside of a small increase in punishment.

That said I think he will get 12 games.
Click to expand...
Also if he was caught in any lies as well. Might factor in, or be completely separate.
 
Lucky said:
But that's the argument that the NFLPA may make in court. And it's all on the NFL for putting themselves in that position.
Click to expand...

They can make it in court and hopefully any judge will tell them exactly what I said.. I mean so what is a judge supposed to say.. since the NFL muffed up things in the past you get a pass and then the next person who pulls your disgusting shenanigans can then point to the mishandling of owners/Watson and also get a pass.. when does it stop? It needs to stop now.
 
Carr Bombed said:
It needs to stop period top and bottom. The argument "this mishandling of this situation, means you should mishandle my situation and give me a slap on the wrist" is a crappy argument. He already got his slap on the wrist in the judicial system.. the NFL needs to drop the hammer and set a new tone from here forward.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
Carr Bombed said:
The argument "this mishandling of this situation, means you should mishandle my situation and give me a slap on the wrist" is a crappy argument.
Click to expand...
Sometimes the only way to get change is for someone to make change. There are more owners under investigation than players. Hell, there's a lawsuit with just about every team named. How does the NFL have moral standing to judge and punish (financially) players? Crappy argument or not, the league put themselves in this position. I wouldn't give a crap if Watson gets an indefinite suspension or not. Either way, I'm watching the NFL. But I don't care for hypocrisy. And I'd like to see these owners pay for their misdeeds.
 
Lucky said:
Sometimes the only way to get change is for someone to make change. There are more owners under investigation than players. Hell, there's a lawsuit with just about every team named. How does the NFL have moral standing to judge and punish (financially) players? Crappy argument or not, the league put themselves in this position. I wouldn't give a crap if Watson gets an indefinite suspension or not. Either way, I'm watching the NFL. But I don't care for hypocrisy. And I'd like to see these owners pay for their misdeeds.
Click to expand...


Why are you trying to make this an "owners Vs players" issue when it's an issue of whether or not Watson broke the personal conduct policy.

What someone else may or may not have done is absolutely irrelevant to that question.


Each case needs to be handled according to its own merits .....
 
Lucky said:
How does the NFL have moral standing to judge and punish (financially) players?
Click to expand...
Next CBA, the players should address this. As it stands, they didn’t & agreed to let the NFL judge/punish (financially) them irrelevant of any moral standing whatsoever.

Lucky said:
But I don't care for hypocrisy. And I'd like to see these owners pay for their misdeeds
Click to expand...
You’re right.

But that’s irrelevant.
 
Florio continues to write, when there is nothing to write about.

*****************************************************************

Will Judge Robinson issue a Deshaun Watson ruling on Friday?
Posted by Mike Florio on July 21, 2022, 9:49 PM EDT


The Browns go to training camp next week. It makes plenty of sense for Judge Sue L. Robinson to issue her ruling on quarterback Deshaun Watson‘s potential discipline before then.

From the moment the hearing ended three weeks ago today and Judge Robinson set a deadline of July 12 for the submission of written materials from the parties, the week of July 25 seemed to be the ideal period of time for a decision. From a P.R. perspective, it’s even more ideal if she issues her decision on Friday afternoon.

Last Friday, the Texans’ settlement of 30 claims related to Watson’s alleged misconduct emerged in the late morning/early afternoon. By Monday morning, it was largely forgotten. Although the ruling on a Deshaun Watson suspension wouldn’t be a faded memory by morning drive-time on Monday, it will have less oomph on Monday if it’s published tomorrow afternoon.

The NFL, if it were being candid, would say it would prefer that the ruling come on Friday afternoon. The NFL Players Association likely would feel the same way. If, as some believe, Watson won’t get the kind of significant punishment that many had believed he’d experience, the league and the union have a shared interest in trying to reduce the backlash from fans and media over the perception that Watson didn’t get the kind of punishment that many believe he deserves.

The Browns, as we’ve reported, are bracing for eight games. A person with knowledge of the submissions made by the parties has suggested a range of two to eight games. By Friday afternoon, the answer finally may arrive.
Subject, of course, to an appeal by either side to Commissioner Roger Goodell — unless Judge Robinson’s decides that there should be no discipline at all.

*****************************************************************

FLORIO's "RELIABLE SOURCE"

1658458992632.png
 
It would seem that Mike Florio’s job is to get his name and his comments into the public atmosphere to be discussed.

The more people talking about him and his opinions, the better it is for him. Truth and accuracy have little to do with that. Reminds me of a coyote Barking at the Moon. The moon does not change but lots of people hear the coyote barking and think something must be happening.
 
thunderkyss said:
Well, that's the question. What does Judge Robinson think the violation is. TWO grand juries have ruled there wasn't enough credible evidence to pursue criminal charges. 20 of 24 women have settled, far as I know without an admission of guilt. What did this grown man do (definitively) to these grown women?

Of course, she's got access to evidence we don't.
Click to expand...

As far as a suspension goes all that really matters is did his actions tarnish the shield? I think we all know the answer to this question and the new question is how long should this pervert who represents the NFL should be punished?
 
steelbtexan said:
I think we all know the answer to this question
Click to expand...
Do we? So far, everyone neutral party who has seen the "evidence" have found it not credible, or insufficient.


Remember, I think he's guilty. But based on the reality of what has transpired so far, I don't believe we're seeing this the right way.
 
thunderkyss said:
Do we? So far, everyone neutral party who has seen the "evidence" have found it not credible, or insufficient.


Remember, I think he's guilty. But based on the reality of what has transpired so far, I don't believe we're seeing this the right way.
Click to expand...
Are you saying what Derrick's already admitted to hasn't tarnished the shield?

If so, agree to disagree. Guilt or innocence in a court of law doesn't really matter.
 
More BS from Florio and his team Watson source. Comparisons between Watson's punishment and owner's punishment will not be relevant in this unprecedented case, especially since they will have been judged under different procedural rules. In the future, Watson's case will likely be used to guage punishment for both players and owners.........although Watson's set of accusations along with several other major factors will probably make it difficult to compare apples with apples.

**************************

NFL will have to deal its treatment of owners in all future Personal Conduct Policy cases against players
Posted by Mike Florio on July 22, 2022, 9:19 AM EDT

One of the best arguments on behalf of Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson under the Personal Conduct Policy comes from the plain language of the document.

Ownership and club or league management have traditionally been held to a higher standard and will be subject to more significant discipline when violations of the Personal Conduct Policy occur.

In Watson’s case, the NFL Players Association specifically pointed to multiple other owners who weren’t punished at all or weren’t punished significantly for actual or potential violations of the policy, focusing on Daniel Snyder, Robert Kraft, and Jerry Jones. As one source with knowledge of the broader strategy explained it to PFT, there are other owners who may have violated the Personal Conduct Policy in the past who experienced something less than the high standard articulated in the policy.

The source specifically mentioned Browns owner Jimmy Haslam, who experienced no scrutiny from the league for his truck-stop company’s widespread fraud on customers. (It seems like Watson’s case would have been a good place to use the Haslam argument.)

The source also explained that, under the new procedure created by the 2020 Collective Bargaining Agreement, with Judge Sue L. Robinson issuing a preliminary decision and then Commissioner Roger Goodell handling any appeal, the comparison between the proposed punishment to be imposed on a given player and specific owners will be made, in every single case.

And it should be. The league didn’t have to extend the policy to non-players. It also didn’t have to crow about owners and club/league management being held to a higher standard. It chose to do so, and now it has to live with the practical consequences of that.

We could get our first glimpse of those consequences, if any, as soon as today, with Judge Robinson’s first decision under this new procedure. It also happens to be one of the league’s biggest Personal Conduct Policy cases in years, if not ever.
 
Majority of players "them dadburn owners must be treated just like us. Wait .. how much money is in my checking account again? Holy cow! That dadburned DeShaun Watson and players like him better get their act together now!"
 
Corrosion said:
That sounds like two little kids .... why am I getting a whoopin for when he isn't?

That's not a legal argument.
Click to expand...

Classic "whataboutism" - the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation

If the public really wanted to hold owners accountable, they'd collectively stop giving them hundred of billions of dollars to build their places of business.

Instead, citizens attach some misguided "civic pride" to an entertainment product and become we-men. "We won"! Yeah, riiiiiight. . . :ok:
 
thunderkyss said:
Do we? So far, everyone neutral party who has seen the "evidence" have found it not credible, or insufficient.


Remember, I think he's guilty. But based on the reality of what has transpired so far, I don't believe we're seeing this the right way.
Click to expand...

Did Jameis Winston’s accuser have credible evidence? Why was it deemed credible, or sufficient?

Seriously - I don’t know.

Why would he be suspended so easily on this action when Watson has a pattern of actions? To me Wilson’s case and Watson’s case have some similarities.

This is what I found:

www.sbnation.com

The NFL suspends Jameis Winston for groping an Uber driver

www.sbnation.com www.sbnation.com
 
TexansBull said:
Did Jameis Winston’s accuser have credible evidence? Why was it deemed credible, or sufficient?

Seriously - I don’t know.

Why would he be suspended so easily on this action when Watson has a pattern of actions? To me Wilson’s case and Watson’s case have some similarities.

This is what I found:

www.sbnation.com

The NFL suspends Jameis Winston for groping an Uber driver

www.sbnation.com www.sbnation.com
Click to expand...
Did Judge Sue Robinson determine there was credible evidence, or was that before the situation we're in now?

I'm sure if it were up to Godell, he'd have been done done it. But it's not.
 
thunderkyss said:
Do we? So far, everyone neutral party who has seen the "evidence" have found it not credible, or insufficient.


Remember, I think he's guilty. But based on the reality of what has transpired so far, I don't believe we're seeing this the right way.
Click to expand...
What neutral parties are you talking about? Certainly not the grand jury. They were not presented all of the evidence.
 
Lucky said:
One thing that worked in the Uber driver's favor was that she reported the incident in a timely manner.
Click to expand...

It helped that Uber had a sexual harassment policy that showed documented action of the harassment.

From what I understand the massage therapists who were “allegedly” assaulted reported it to the spa owner who did nothing.

Someone correct me if I am wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top