re: Zeke Elliott suspended 6 games

quote:

---

I hate the Cowboys; but this is bullshite.

---

I love the Cowboys, at least before they dicked Romo; but this is not bullshite.

Hardy got 10 games, but it was appealed to 4. That being said, the Josh Brown thing is a head scratcher.

The NFL believes 100% they have the goods to back this up. They wouldn't have sent out such a clear letter unless they thought they did.

They better be right, for their sake.

quote:

---

The NFL believes 100% they have the goods to back this up. They wouldn't have sent out such a clear letter unless they thought they did.

---

Like the time they issued a nationally televised statement about Bountygate that turned out to be ~70% false?

I'm not saying they're infallible by any means.

I'm just pointing out that they must truly think this is not even a question this happened.

It seems like they are working under the burden of the preponderance of the evidence, similar to civil court.

It will be interesting to see how hard Zeke fights this.

quote:

---

I just don't understand the thought process on the length of punishment for code of conduct violations. There needs to be some consistency in what he hands out. Greg Hardy got 4 games, Josh Brown admitted to DV for years and got 1 game. Le'veon Bell was suspended 3 games for pot and Josh Gordon suspended more than a season for pot. Goodell doesn't appear to have a clue how to handle disciplinary issues and it's bad for fans, corporate sponsors, tv, etc.

---

Agreed, it's ridiculous.

The NFLPA will need to straighten that out next CBA, but the funny thing is, they'll probably have to give up something super valuable just for that.

quote:

---

They have to believe, based on the evidence they've gathered, that he hit her. The DA has to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Those are two entirely different burdens. You don't seem to understand the difference.

---

Uh....

quote:

---

I realize the two are not related in that one is a league policy and the other is a criminal matter, but they are both based on the same allegations. Allegations from a proven liar.

---

I mean, how stupid is that? You actually believe that crap? It can't be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he did it, but he gets suspended anyway? Oh, and the league statement seems to be that he hit her. Not that they believe he hit her. Not that they suspect he hit her. HE HIT HER. That's rather definitive, wouldn't you say? Maybe even beyond a shadow of a doubt? But the DA couldn't prove it?

I'm sorry, but I don't buy that crap for a second, especially when they have sworn affidavits and text messages proving the accuser lied.

Yeah, the two are different. I understand that perfectly. But the fact is, the NFL is acting like they know with certainty that he did it, when the DA couldn't prove it. And no one else sees anything wrong with that picture?

quote:

---

Jerry Jinxed us

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck This was our year 10-1 odds of making the Super Bowl, right behind New England

---

You'll get a Zeke with 6 less games of wear and tear for the playoffs, DAL will be fine.

quote:

---

Ezekiel Elliott

---

Sean Payton 2.0

This has the Mara family written all over it. Frick you Goodell

quote:

---

A district attorney who investigated the case has gone public saying he believes from a logical standpoint that Elliot assaulted this woman.

---

Apparently this is common. A lot of crimes he believes occured don't have sufficient evidence to bring forth charges.

Cowboys RB Ezekiel Elliott, accuser had violent incidents, prosecutor believes

quote:

---

Over the course of a calendar year, there are thousands of complaints filed through our office where I truly believe the person filing the complaint is a victim of crime. But, for a significant number of them, the reality is that there is insufficient corroborating evidence to approve a criminal charge.

---

I mean this is my own city, and his office only handles assaults, stolen/damaged property, and threats of harm. And those are only the ones reported.

So apparently in my own city, either we have a bunch of criminals running free and are either good at not providing enough evidence to even be charged, and/or a person investigating them believes a lot of crimes occured that didn't actually occur.

So given his belief in all of these "crimes" that don't have the evidence, and in this case he still believes a crime occured, despite the evidence showing the accuser lying and trying to actually set him up, I think we are seeing a underlying problem with our criminal justice system. Their careers are based largely around the search for crime and it's evidence, and the frankly, their jobs are dependent on the existence of crime, and the elected DA is often judged by getting tough on crime. So there is an inherent bias, that I think compels them to believe in crime and guilt.

I mean there are many examples of prosecutorial misconduct, which is inexcusable. I don't think he's one that does it, nor is it that pervasive, but it exists, and it's morally reprehensible given their purpose and status.

But what does occur frequently, and I think this is more pervasive, is an unwavering belief in guilt, when when there is irrefutable evidence otherwise. We've seen people wrongfully convicted, on flimsy circumstantial evidence, aand despite complete exoneration, DAs who still believe the person is guilty.

So given his belief in this situation, despite the accusers inexcusable actions and deception, his admitted belief in a bunch of other crimes without enough evidence, the external forces incentivizing such a belief, and the countless examples of other DAs belief in guilt counter to all available evidence, I think his BELIEF is given undue weight.

And I think this undue weight, is one of the major reasons why the criminal justice system is so disturbingly flawed.