Judge Recommends Suspension of 6 Games for Deshaun Watson

[Superbelt]

Just make sure his next masseuse has jagged, unkempt nails.

 

[wilwhite]

I think criminality is important when assigning appropriate punishment. I'm not arguing he shouldn't be suspended at all but rather it's very difficult to exceed 6 games when nothing criminal took place and it's personal conduct that doesn't effect the integrity of the game.

If the argument is that he sexually assaulted dozens of women but criminal charges aren't being pressed then we have an issue bigger than Watson, the Browns or the NFL

The standard for criminal charges is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Outside of criminal trials the standard is "more likely than not." OJ Simpson, for example, won the criminal case and lost the civil one.

If prosecutors don't think they can prove something beyond a reasonable doubt, they drop the charges. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that they don't think they can definitively prove it in court.

Watson, facing civil suits but not criminal charges, is in that zone. NFL discipline is more like a civil case (and one civil case is still open).

 

[dtgold88]

@dtgold88 is signing up for massage school as we speak

I'll give credit where due...I laughed.

 

[wilwhite]

9. Judge Robinson said that the league's stance on Deshaun Watson was a response to public outcry, and that the league is trying to impose a "dramatic shift" in the rules without fair notice to the players and others covered by the PCP.

This is the most compelling reason for the thin penalty, IMO. I don't really know the rules but I assume Robinson does.

I'll also point out that this decision can't protect Watson from being the target of demonstrations, or the Browns, the NFL, or anybody televising Watson games or their sponsors from boycotts.

 

[Cincyfan78]

This is the most compelling reason for the thin penalty, IMO. I don't really know the rules but I assume Robinson does.

I'll also point out that this decision can't protect Watson from being the target of demonstrations, or the Browns, the NFL, or anybody televising Watson games or their sponsors from boycotts.

The issue I, personally, took with #9 on that list is that I don't think the NFL is trying to drastically change anything. This case was reviewed by the arbiter as if it were normal. The sheer volume of women involved (66+ over 17 months) alone makes this anything but normal.

The normal process for these kinds of cases within the NFL typically involve 1, maybe 2, victims/accusers. In this instance, the accused is facing 24, maybe 26, complaints/accusations.

I think to sweep all of this under the rug as "1 incident" is a poor view, and to go even further and lump this is with other preceding suspensions is even more egregious.

But, that's just my personal opinion, I suppose.

 

[futballiscool]

The standard for criminal charges is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Outside of criminal trials the standard is "more likely than not." OJ Simpson, for example, won the criminal case and lost the civil one.

If prosecutors don't think they can prove something beyond a reasonable doubt, they drop the charges. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that they don't think they can definitively prove it in court.

Watson, facing civil suits but not criminal charges, is in that zone. NFL discipline is more like a civil case (and one civil case is still open).

OJ Simpson's case went to criminal trial. This was deemed not even fit for trial. If there are dozens of valid accusations then this is a bigger issue than the NFL.

 

[Battlelyon]

 

[Manster7588]

OJ Simpson's case went to criminal trial. This was deemed not even fit for trial. If there are dozens of valid accusations then this is a bigger issue than the NFL.

What you are completely failing to grasp. Is there doesn't need to be criminal charges to be suspended for violation of the NFL Personal Conduct Policy.

By the way the Judge DID rule Watson violated PCP

 

[Manster7588]

Difference is Krafts rub&tug was via an agreement between two individuals, whereas Watsons was forced.

Now did Kraft break a law? YES, but he never forced another to jerk him off.

 

[Battlelyon]

Difference is Krafts rub&tug was via an agreement between two individuals, whereas Watsons was forced.

Now did Kraft break a law? YES, but he never forced another to jerk him off.

True, but probably should of said nothing about it.

 

[Manster7588]

True, but probably should of said nothing about it.

I could agree with that. Not the best look. Odds are some reporter sped to Krafts location for a Hot Take, and he got exactly what he wanted.

 

[Manster7588]

Full PDF on Watson

https://www.espn.com/pdf/2022/0801/watson.pdf

Judge Robinson rips Watson and the NFL.

 

[Breed]

A female judge even eh.

Can you spell "skated" boys n girls?

 

[wilwhite]

Or if interested:

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22124209/deshaun-watson-suspension-ruling.pdf

About the actual number of games as relates to 24 incidents, she doesn't address it directly, but I'll try:

​

It likewise is undisputed that prior cases involving non-violent sexual assault have resulted in discipline far less severe than what the NFL proposes here, with the most severe penalty being a 3-game suspension for a player who had been previously warned about his conduct.​

(That's almost certainly Jameis Winston groping an Uber driver, which is the only 3-game suspension for sexual stuff under the revised policy she's citing.)

If we try some math here, one alleged instance, with a warning beforehand, equals three games. So 24 instances would be 72 games, but Watson had not been warned.

72 to six is a steep drop, especially considering Robinson's stated lack of remorse on Watson's part, and her belief that he was lying. Watson did "pay restitution," though, which she considered.

 

[futballiscool]

What you are completely failing to grasp. Is there doesn't need to be criminal charges to be suspended for violation of the NFL Personal Conduct Policy.

By the way the Judge DID rule Watson violated PCP

I'm aware of this. He has in fact been suspended. The question is the length of suspension you can enact as punishment for a player who had no prior history of off the field misconduct and who wasn't charged criminally. To me, 6 games is about right.

 

[futballiscool]

Difference is Krafts rub&tug was via an agreement between two individuals, whereas Watsons was forced.

Now did Kraft break a law? YES, but he never forced another to jerk him off.

This could be a missing piece of the puzzle as to why I'm so far off everyone else's viewpoint. Did Watson force anyone to do anything against their will?

 

[Manster7588]

I'm aware of this. He has in fact been suspended. The question is the length of suspension you can enact as punishment for a player who had no prior history of off the field misconduct and who wasn't charged criminally. To me, 6 games is about right.

The MULTIPLE accusations should be considered as MULTIPLE accusations, not just one incident.

He knew it was wrong, or he wouldn’t of had NDA's in play.

Stop acting like he had no idea it was in violation.

If you get a massage and try to force the women to touch your junk, thats assault.

If you go to a rub&tug, and agree to pay for said service, thats not assult, thats prostitution.

Honestly had he went to 66 rub&tugs, I wouldn't care if he got no games, as it wouldn't have been forced.

 

[Manster7588]

This could be a missing piece of the puzzle as to why I'm so far off everyone else's viewpoint. Did Watson force anyone to do anything against their will?

YES he did, hence the women pressing charges.

 

[futballiscool]

YES he did, hence the women pressing charges.

My understanding is he was soliciting women in ways they found uncomfortable and inappropriate. The reason he isn't in a jail cell right now is because he didn't actually force anyone to commit a sex act on him.

 

[Manster7588]

My understanding is he was soliciting women in ways they found uncomfortable and inappropriate. The reason he isn't in a jail cell right now is because he didn't actually force anyone to commit a sex act on him.

He was accused of forcing his junk on women.

While I have no proof, I'd lay odds the reason the Grand Juries said no to charging him, is all the defense has to do is discredit one or two accusers and the whole case falls apart. It's quite possible that if only 5 or 6 came forward the case goes to trial.

To prosecute the DA has to prove his case, the defense just has to show doubt. If I his defense I'd simply look at the weak links and the whole prosecution Tug boat drifts out to sea.