skinsman4u Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 :laugh: http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2602068#post2602068 :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SittingBull Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 haha, thanks bleedbng! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamJT13 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Otherwise any idiot could accuse any NFL player of assault with a deadly weapon and the NFL would have to suspend him under your rational. Being accused of something won't get you suspended. If you were found guilty, you would be subject to punishment. If you pleaded no contest, you would be subject to punishment. If you accepted a diversionary program, you would be subject to punishment. Being accused an exonerated isn't likely to get you punished. Look at Ray Lewis. People DIED. He was charged with MURDER. He plea bargained down and got NO SUSPENSION. Lewis entered a plea to a nonviolent crime -- obstruction of justice. Had Taylor's no contest plea been for nonviolent charges such as obstruction of justice, being a public nuisance, creating a public disturbance, etc., I wouldn't expect him to be suspended, either. But he pleaded no contest to two crimes of violence, which likely will get him a one-game suspension. No PROOF to warrant that he was guilty. It doesn't matter whether there's proof or not. The NFL's Conduct Policy says that simply pleading no contest makes you subject to punishment by the commissioner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadKarma Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Glad this finally went away although I was never convinced he was going to do any jail time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmcardle1982 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Super Bowl here we come Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamJT13 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue fined Kreutz and Miller because the league's special conduct policy addresses off-field matters. It specifically prohibits conduct that endangers NFL employees and casts a negative light on the league and its players.Employees Convicted of Violent Criminal Activity: Any Covered Employee convicted of or admitting to prohibited conduct (including within the context of a diversionary program, deferred adjudication, disposition of supervision, or similar arrangement including but not limited to a plea to a lesser included offense or nolo contendre) will be subject to a fine or suspension without pay by the Commissioner. In the case of coaching or player employees, discipline also may include suspension from participation in preseason, regular season, and postseason games. Any Covered Employee convicted of or admitting to a second crime of violence will be suspended without pay or banished from the National Football League for a period of time to be determined by the Commissioner. Now, are you re-writing the policy? I'm not re-writing anything. They violated the policy and were fined for it. But as I said earlier, Miller and Kreutz were never charged with a crime. Had they been charged with assault and battery, and had they pleaded no contest, I would have expected suspensions. And if Taylor simply admitted to being in a fight but was never charged and never pleaded no contest, I wouldn't expect him to be suspended, either. But because he pleased no contest to misdemeanor assault and misdemeanor battery, I'd expect a one-game suspension, as is the precedent. He might not be suspended, or he might get suspended for more than one game (depending on what kind of stance the new commissioner wants to take), but one game would be the normal suspension in a case such as this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamJT13 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Agree...and good post. And "Tags" reserves the right to declare no further action is required. I'm not a lawyer, but is pleading No Lo Contender (spelling) indicative of guilt? Right now everyone is saying a bunch of stuff, but what is Tags' saying. Tagliabue has suspended plenty of players who pleaded no contest. But Tagliabue probably won't be the one making the decision. Unless choosing a new commissioner takes longer than expected, the new guy is likely to make that decision, probably in August. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedBNG Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 I'm not re-writing anything. They violated the policy and were fined for it. But as I said earlier, Miller and Kreutz were never charged with a crime. Had they been charged with assault and battery, and had they pleaded no contest, I would have expected suspensions. And if Taylor simply admitted to being in a fight but was never charged and never pleaded no contest, I wouldn't expect him to be suspended, either. But because he pleased no contest to misdemeanor assault and misdemeanor battery, I'd expect a one-game suspension, as is the precedent.He might not be suspended, or he might get suspended for more than one game (depending on what kind of stance the new commissioner wants to take), but one game would be the normal suspension in a case such as this. Actually, none of this means anything because they could have suspended Miller and Kreutz if they wanted to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnhay Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 ']I foretold of this months ago. Nothing to see here. Move along. Many people thought that, it's just good that it's over. Now I don't have to worry about the Taylor jersey I just bought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamJT13 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Actually, none of this means anything because they could have suspended Miller and Kreutz if they wanted to. Correct, but there's no precedent for suspending players under the Conduct Policy when they haven't been charged with a crime. There is precedent for suspending players who plead no contest to misdemeanor crimes of violence. The NFL could do anything from not punishing him to banishing him for life -- it's totally at the discretion of the commissioner (and subject to appeal). But to figure out what's most likely to happen, you have to look at the precedent that has been set. And the normal punishment for pleading no contest to crimes of violence is a one-game suspension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rashee111495 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 This by far made my week. I have no doubt that he will take all of his frustrations and anger out on the rest of the NFL this season. Get the body bags ready because it's going to be ugly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinpride1 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Just a little smack on the hand for Taylor :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeknows Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 i knew it would come down to much ado about nothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinswin'emALL Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Being accused of something won't get you suspended. If you were found guilty, you would be subject to punishment. If you pleaded no contest, you would be subject to punishment. If you accepted a diversionary program, you would be subject to punishment. Being accused an exonerated isn't likely to get you punished. Lewis entered a plea to a nonviolent crime -- obstruction of justice. Had Taylor's no contest plea been for nonviolent charges such as obstruction of justice, being a public nuisance, creating a public disturbance, etc., I wouldn't expect him to be suspended, either. But he pleaded no contest to two crimes of violence, which likely will get him a one-game suspension. It doesn't matter whether there's proof or not. The NFL's Conduct Policy says that simply pleading no contest makes you subject to punishment by the commissioner. The NFL is not very consistent with it's actions, so woh knows waht they may or may not do... I would tend to think that he would have gotten a 1 game if he had taken a plea deal last year, but time can be a factor too. It doesnt really matter cause the skins play the vikes 1st and some of its palyers are taking plea deals for the boat party, so both teams might be in the same boat :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
909997 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 thank god.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tazhog Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Sounds like someone who was interested in justice instead of headlines took over the case Hail Yes, Bubba!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzSkinsFan63 Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Charges should have been dropped completely but Miami DA is crooked!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnyandSam Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Agree...and good post. And "Tags" reserves the right to declare no further action is required. I'm not a lawyer, but is pleading No Lo Contender (spelling) indicative of guilt? Right now everyone is saying a bunch of stuff, but what is Tags' saying...Art, do you have an inside scoop to find out what Tags may say? No I don't expect an answer. :munchout: From Law.com..... n. in criminal law, a defendant's plea in court that he/she will not contest the charge of a particular crime, also called nolo contendere. While technically not an admission of guilt for commission of the crime, the judge will treat a plea of "no contest" as such an admission and proceed to find the defendant guilty as charged. A "no contest" plea is often made in cases in which there is also a possible lawsuit for damages by a person injured by the criminal conduct (such as reckless driving, assault with a deadly weapon, aggravated assault), because it cannot be used in the civil lawsuit as an admission of fault. "No contest" is also used where there has been a "plea bargain" in which the defendant does not want to say he/she is guilty but accepts the sentence recommended by the prosecutor in exchange for not contesting the charge (which is often reduced to a lesser crime). Hope that helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnyandSam Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Being accused of something won't get you suspended. If you were found guilty, you would be subject to punishment. If you pleaded no contest, you would be subject to punishment. If you accepted a diversionary program, you would be subject to punishment. Being accused an exonerated isn't likely to get you punished. I didn't think I had to spell it out for you but I will now. Assume you and I are NFL players. If I accuse you of shooting at me and the police believe me and not you; then charge you with felony assault on me; and you plea bargain down to "no contest" to avoid jail time (even if I lied). Should you be suspended on such dubious evidence that the DA would plea down from 3 felony assault charges to simple assault and battery? This whole thing stunk from the beginning. It is a "he said/he said" case. So yes, Taylor would be disciplined under the NFL policy but not necessarily with a suspension. You are making this into a black and white decision (not racial folks!) when it is a very light gray area. Lewis entered a plea to a nonviolent crime -- obstruction of justice. Had Taylor's no contest plea been for nonviolent charges such as obstruction of justice, being a public nuisance, creating a public disturbance, etc., I wouldn't expect him to be suspended, either. But he pleaded no contest to two crimes of violence, which likely will get him a one-game suspension. Like I said, this was a political witch hunt by a DA who was forced into resigning because of the things he did. The only witness has a criminal history and was arrested only months later in possession of stolen ATVs. The DA's office realized how bad a case they had that they dropped all felony charges, and are willing to have Taylor's record be swept clean if Taylor stays clean for 18 months. That in itself is a sign of how bad the case was against Taylor. Fine but no suspension It doesn't matter whether there's proof or not. The NFL's Conduct Policy says that simply pleading no contest makes you subject to punishment by the commissioner. I NEVER disagreed that he was subject to punishment. You believe the ONLY decision the NFL can make is to suspend Taylor. I think the lack of proof and evidence is so large that the NFL will take that under consideration. Taylor told the judge in his own words...."This is not something I think I'm guilty of, [but] so I can move on with my life, and everyone can move on with theirs . . . I accept this." That is the real question. Will the NFL lawyers look at the case and the information provided by Taylor's lawyers and decide that he was guilty and just got off easy? Or will they decide there really was hardly sufficient evidence to find Taylor guilty and Taylor was doing the prudent thing to avoid an unlikely jury verdict of guilty. I believe it to be the latter. That NFL policy is not as clear as you want to make us believe. The Commissioner has very broad discretion under that policy language. As I have said....a fine but no time ( I almost made a ryhme!) In any case, this is all fantastic news for Taylor, the Skins and of course us, fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DWinzit Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 I'm feeling much better about our safety position now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One Shot Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 The Football Gods are on our side Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedBNG Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 ... but there's no precedent for suspending players under the Conduct Policy when they haven't been charged with a crime. What the public doesn't know won't hurt their PR. So it's more of a PR Conduct Policy. All 3 players do the same thing. One is charged while the other 2 (first lied about it, then later admit it) get a suspension free card. NFL Court Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harrahs80 Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 maybe this is a good sign maybe its a sign for worse things to come with taylor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamJT13 Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 I didn't think I had to spell it out for you but I will now. Assume you and I are NFL players. If I accuse you of shooting at me and the police believe me and not you; then charge you with felony assault on me; and you plea bargain down to "no contest" to avoid jail time (even if I lied). Should you be suspended on such dubious evidence that the DA would plea down from 3 felony assault charges to simple assault and battery? This whole thing stunk from the beginning. It is a "he said/he said" case. So yes, Taylor would be disciplined under the NFL policy but not necessarily with a suspension. Personally, I wouldn't plead no contest if I didn't do anything. If I did commit assault and battery, and pleaded no contest to it, then I should be suspended. I NEVER disagreed that he was subject to punishment. You believe the ONLY decision the NFL can make is to suspend Taylor. I don't believe that, and I've never said that. The NFL give him make any severity of punishment, from absolutely nothing to banishment for life. All I said was that similar cases have most often resulted in one-game suspensions, which is what the NFL lawyer told Taylor's lawyer, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 Adam, A plea of no contest with no actual finding and the possibility of a total eradication from one's record in 18 months or whatever if you stay straight is a pretty straightforward, easy, simple, obvious path to take, even for a man who was innocent. Now, we know Taylor got into a little rumble and that's a perfectly acceptable, mild situation treated so by the law. While possible a suspension could come from the league, it is unlikely in this case due to the circumstances surrounding it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.