The Weird, Wacky and Awesome World of the NFL - General Banter thread V3

Big Pussy Bonpensiero · 15-05-2019 02:59PM

The outcome of the case was always a bit irrelevant to Kraft anyway. The damage was done when the story and he'll be associated with it for the rest of his days. A pity for him as I'd bet my left knut that most billionaires have elicited sex at some point.

Foxtrol · 15-05-2019 03:03PM

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Nothing to do with high priced lawyers; all others in the case also plead not guilty and refused the plea deal. With the facts of the conduct of the police, it looks like a decent lawyer could have made the same case.

I'd imagine the NFL will dish some punishment, but doubt it'll be too severe. It was a consensual rub and tug; not exactly the crime of the century.

Decent lawyers don't come cheap, it is one of the main reasons why there is such a huge disparity in sentencing in the US. The rest of the guys charged would have been idiots to not also plead not guilty, knowing that Kraft was bringing his high priced lawyers to dig through every technicality to get as much evidence thrown out as possible, which is exactly what happened.

The technicality they ended up using to block the tape didn't even have anything to do with how the police treated Kraft or the other guys who were caught buying the sex acts. It is a weird technicality where it punishes the police/prosecution/public by helping people who commit crimes go free because the police didn't do enough to protect the privacy of those who weren't committing the crime. Logically there should be another avenue to punish the police than that.

j8wk2feszrnpao · 15-05-2019 03:22PM

Foxtrol wrote: »

Decent lawyers don't come cheap

Given the ruling, and wording by the judge, this wasn't that difficult to pick up on for a decent/ok lawyer. When this initially broke, there was a regular lawyer on one of the Boston sports stations who kinda picked up on this early. It didn't need any high priced lawyer once the facts came out.

Foxtrol wrote: »

It is a weird technicality where it punishes the police/prosecution/public by helping people who commit crimes go free because the police didn't do enough to protect the privacy of those who weren't committing the crime.

It's not weird at all. The police broke laws that are there to protect privacy; there's a reason that these technicalities were brought in.

According to the judge: “The fact that some totally innocent women and men had their entire lawful time spent in a massage room fully recorded and viewed intermittently by a detective-monitor is unacceptable and results from the lack of sufficient pre-monitoring guidelines,” Hanser wrote.

As Big Pussy Bonpensiero said, for Kraft, the damage is probably already done. Lawfully this may go away, but his reputation has taken a hit, and I'd imagine the NFL will add to it.

Billy86 · 15-05-2019 03:45PM

Can anyone remember what Jim Irsay's punishment was? Kraft's will likely be similar I would think.

Foxtrol · 15-05-2019 03:50PM

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Given the ruling, and wording by the judge, this wasn't that difficult to pick up on for a decent/ok lawyer. When this initially broke, there was a regular lawyer on one of the Boston sports stations who kinda picked up on this early. It didn't need any high priced lawyer once the facts came out.

You should really read up on the issues in the US around overburdened public defenders and how they generally pressure their clients to accept plea deals, whether guilty or not.

From what you were saying I was sure Kraft hired the local Florida Lionel Hutz to defend him, as it was such a slam dunk easy case, but he brought in William A. Burck, a lawyer in the George W. Bush White House and had a role in the screening of documents related to Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s recent Supreme Court nomination, and Jack Goldberger, the Florida lawyer who defended Jeffrey E. Epstein, a wealthy New York financier accused of trafficking underage girls for sex.

Seems like Kraft only takes the cheap option for certain things

It's not weird at all. The police broke laws that are there to protect privacy; there's a reason that these technicalities were brought in.

According to the judge: “The fact that some totally innocent women and men had their entire lawful time spent in a massage room fully recorded and viewed intermittently by a detective-monitor is unacceptable and results from the lack of sufficient pre-monitoring guidelines,” Hanser wrote.

As Big Pussy Bonpensiero said, for Kraft, the damage is probably already done. Lawfully this may go away, but his reputation has taken a hit, and I'd imagine the NFL will add to it.

The police broke the law when it came to innocent people, but there is no complaint about them filming Kraft and co doing their criminal acts. Fine if they want to separately charge or sue the police officers on behalf of the innocent people, but it has nothing to do with the criminals, so why should theirs be thrown out?

People see this case as no big deal but it seems insane that a murderer or pedophile could get off because the police didn't turn off their cameras enough to protect the privacy of people who have nothing to do with the crime.

KrustyUCC · 15-05-2019 03:52PM

Billy86 wrote: »

Can anyone remember what Jim Irsay's punishment was? Kraft's will likely be similar I would think.

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2014/9/2/5866029/jim-irsay-colts-owner-suspension

Billy86 · 15-05-2019 03:59PM

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Billy86 wrote: »

Can anyone remember what Jim Irsay's punishment was? Kraft's will likely be similar I would think.

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2014/9/2/5866029/jim-irsay-colts-owner-suspension

There you go - stay home for a handful of games you were not coaching or playing in, and pay a fine of about 00.02% of your net worth.

Not sure if they'd place something else in since kraft doesn't use twitter as best I know, but owners don't really look to punish their own,in case it's their turn in the barrel down the line.

j8wk2feszrnpao · 15-05-2019 04:34PM

Foxtrol wrote: »

You should really read up on the issues in the US around overburdened public defenders and how they generally pressure their clients to accept plea deals, whether guilty or not.

Why? Yes, there are over burdened lawyers. I don't know the people involved in this, but there was more than two dozen; I'd imagine at least one had a decent enough lawyer that saw this gaping hole. These were people who were able to pay for a service that a billionaire was availing of; they weren't on the poverty line. As I said, a basic lawyer in Boston pointed out the potential flaw in the prosecution; this wasn't Cochran and OJ.

Foxtrol wrote: »

From what you were saying I was sure Kraft hired the local Florida Lionel Hutz to defend him

If it was a speeding ticket, Kraft would have the best lawyer possible. It doesn't matter.

Foxtrol wrote: »

The police broke the law when it came to innocent people, but there is no complaint about them filming Kraft and co doing their criminal acts. Fine if they want to separately charge or sue the police officers on behalf of the innocent people, but it has nothing to do with the criminals, so why should theirs be thrown out?

That's the reason these technicalities are there; to ensure that the police are actually following the law. Would anyone think it's ok that that police stick a camera into their living room, just in case you ever break the law? That's why the police/prosecution are held to a higher standard than criminals.

I don't like it that Kraft and co are avoiding prosecution based on the technicality. Personally, I think he did pay for the extra service. But I'd have more outrage at the police, cause this could have been a murder/pedophile that could have gotten off because of their own illegal actions.

jack presley · 15-05-2019 04:39PM

Big Pussy Bonpensiero wrote: »

The outcome of the case was always a bit irrelevant to Kraft anyway. The damage was done when the story and he'll be associated with it for the rest of his days. A pity for him as I'd bet my left knut that most billionaires have elicited sex at some point.

That's it. He was never going to serve any time and fine would be meaningless but he'll never get his reputation back. I just hope TMZ or someone doesn't end up with the tape.

Foxtrol · 15-05-2019 05:06PM

munstermagic11 wrote: »

That's the reason these technicalities are there; to ensure that the police are actually following the law. Would anyone think it's ok that that police stick a camera into their living room, just in case you ever break the law? That's why the police/prosecution are held to a higher standard than criminals.

How do you justify the criminal going free being correct punishment for the police, when the technicality has nothing to do with the criminals? I understand throwing out evidence if they illegal taped Kraft but that isn't what happened. You can hold the police to a higher standard through plenty of other avenues, that doesn't involve freeing criminals to teach them a lesson.

In your example, it is like the police having a valid warrant for a camera in that living room based on evidence that a person is committing a crime, catching that person committing murder on tape and then not being allowed to use it because they didn't turn it when that person wasn't in the room. It has nothing to do with the murder.

MileHighGuy · 15-05-2019 06:20PM

jack presley wrote: »

That's it. He was never going to serve any time and fine would be meaningless but he'll never get his reputation back. I just hope TMZ or someone doesn't end up with the tape.

Hear hear. I'm glad the tape never came out and hope it dies down now. He didn't murder anyone. No need to add to his embarrassment, and if he got off he got off. That's the system.

MileHighGuy · 15-05-2019 06:21PM

MileHighGuy wrote: »

Hear hear. I'm glad the tape never came out and hope it dies down now. He didn't murder anyone. No need to add to his embarrassment, and if he got off he got off. That's the system.

...not sure why i used "hear hear" that was a bit weird....

j8wk2feszrnpao · 15-05-2019 08:03PM

Foxtrol wrote: »

How do you justify the criminal going free being correct punishment for the police

It's not solely punishment for the police; society is punished due to the actions of the police. Someone got off because the police didn't do their job correctly.

Foxtrol wrote: »

You can hold the police to a higher standard through plenty of other avenues, that doesn't involve freeing criminals to teach them a lesson.

Actually, you do have to teach them a lesson, otherwise they are a law unto themselves. A monitory fine, or a slap on the wrist, isn't going to deter the police from wrongfully obtaining evidence; as this case proves.

Foxtrol wrote: »

In your example, it is like the police having a valid warrant for a camera in that living room based on evidence that a person is committing a crime, catching that person committing murder on tape and then not being allowed to use it because they didn't turn it when that person wasn't in the room. It has nothing to do with the murder.

If they rightfully obtained a valid warrant, it's fine. That wasn't done, it was seriously flawed warrant. That's the system, which the police are expected to follow. This was meant to be a human sex trafficking case, which the prosecution later admitted they had no evidence for; their actions have been quite shady in all of this.

Foxtrol · 15-05-2019 08:54PM

munstermagic11 wrote: »

It's not solely punishment for the police; society is punished due to the actions of the police. Someone got off because the police didn't do their job correctly.

Actually, you do have to teach them a lesson, otherwise they are a law unto themselves. A monitory fine, or a slap on the wrist, isn't going to deter the police from wrongfully obtaining evidence; as this case proves.

To me that line of thinking is simply insane. You're calling for punishing society by releasing a criminal in order to teach a lesson to a police officer, when their infraction had nothing to do with that criminal in question. It makes as much sense as releasing a criminal because the arresting police officer was caught speeding while off duty.

I also have no idea how you can claim that this infraction by police proves that the ongoing punishment of teaching them a lesson by releasing criminals is working. If anything it shows that the process isn't working and they need to look at other ways to punish them.

Not sure if you’re twisting yourself in knots to defend something Patriots related again or actually believe what you're posting, but we’re clearly not agreeing here so I’ll leave it at that.

j8wk2feszrnpao · 15-05-2019 09:25PM

Foxtrol wrote: »

To me that line of thinking is simply insane. You're calling for punishing society by releasing a criminal in order to teach a lesson to a police officer, when their infraction had nothing to do with that criminal in question. It makes as much sense as releasing a criminal because the arresting police officer was caught speeding while off duty.

What are you smoking? I'm not calling for anything, just telling you the way it is. If you have an issue with the American judicial system get onto them; go tell the judge he was wrong cause you think you are right :rolleyes:

Foxtrol wrote: »

I also have no idea how you can claim that this infraction by police proves that the ongoing punishment of teaching them a lesson by releasing criminals is working. If anything it shows that the process isn't working and they need to look at other ways to punish them.

Again, what the hell are you on about? This is the American judicial system. They have rules to be followed, if you don't, cases can be dismissed. That's the way it works. I don't like that criminals get off that way, but what the hell do you expect me to do about it.

Foxtrol wrote: »

Not sure if you’re twisting yourself in knots to defend something Patriots related again or actually believe what you're posting, but we’re clearly not agreeing here so I’ll leave it at that.

Ah, I see. Always the Pats with you. You need to get some help with that. You've twisted yourself into knots with your on going infatuation. I say "I don't like it that Kraft and co are avoiding prosecution based on the technicality", but I'm defending him

I said I think he's guilty, and I don't like the way he's gotten off from this; but you'll probably read that as a defense :rolleyes:

Adamcp898 · 15-05-2019 11:45PM

I see we’re all well-read solicitors again, lads.

No, Robert. That’s called soliciting and they’re not.

:pac:

BizzyC · 16-05-2019 12:58PM

From reading the details, it does seem like the police over-reached on this one.

They went after high profile targets with charges that were unfounded(trafficking) and have then settled for something lower profile instead (solicitation).
They went in with an approach that was too vague and loose to hold up under scrutiny in court, and with Kraft's lawyers picking that apart they'll also likely lose their ability to prosecute at least some of the other men who have also been charged as a result of the same investigation.

The police have to be held to a standard that has them gather evidence in a legal and fair manner, they can't invade a person's right to privacy without explicit and tightly controlled permission.
It's a shame that a poorly planned operation will mean that a bunch of people are likely to get away scot free, but I think that's entirely the police's own fault. Whoever ran that operation should be demoted.

Hazys · 16-05-2019 05:00PM

The Police basically tried to blackmail Kraft into taking a guilty plea by threatening him with the release of the tape. Police were very sketchy in how they operated in nearly every aspect of the investigation. It would have been one thing if Kraft's lawyers found one technicality loop hole to get him off (excuse the pun), its another thing when they found multiple issues and violations of the law with the investigation.

Hell one can even go as far and argue that since Kraft was able to hire fancy lawyers to defend him, it shone a light on bad if not, immoral police investigations that try to push prosecutions on far from concrete evidence, that would have never come to light because the accused with lesser resources would be forced into taking a guilty plea whether they committed a crime or not. All hail Robert Kraft Justice Warrior!!

markc91 · 16-05-2019 05:04PM

Just watched building the browns on YouTube it's a great insight into behind the scenes

BonnieSituation · 16-05-2019 05:18PM

markc91 wrote: »

Just watched building the browns on YouTube it's a great insight into behind the scenes

Linky linky

KrustyUCC · 16-05-2019 05:20PM

Cardinals CB Patrick Peterson suspended six games

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000001031036/article/cardinals-cb-patrick-peterson-suspended-six-games

OldMrBrennan83 · 16-05-2019 05:23PM

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Linky linky

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO2Y6BHYhHw

Foxtrol · 16-05-2019 05:37PM

Hazys wrote: »

The Police basically tried to blackmail Kraft into taking a guilty plea by threatening him with the release of the tape. Police were very sketchy in how they operated in nearly every aspect of the investigation. It would have been one thing if Kraft's lawyers found one technicality loop hole to get him off (excuse the pun), its another thing when they found multiple issues and violations of the law with the investigation.

Hell one can even go as far and argue that since Kraft was able to hire fancy lawyers to defend him, it shone a light on bad if not, immoral police investigations that try to push prosecutions on far from concrete evidence, that would have never come to light because the accused with lesser resources would be forced into taking a guilty plea whether they committed a crime or not. All hail Robert Kraft Justice Warrior!!

This is pretty much how most US law enforcement works, they are rarely the 'best and the brightest'.

Huge stretch to call it a bad or immoral investigation though and I'm also not sure how you call the evidence far from concrete, they have a video of him committing the crime (and enjoying it). Police just didn't turn off the camera when it was clear that visitors weren't paying for the Robert Kraft special.

j8wk2feszrnpao · 16-05-2019 09:34PM

Hazys wrote: »

It would have been one thing if Kraft's lawyers found one technicality loop hole to get him off (excuse the pun), its another thing when they found multiple issues and violations of the law with the investigation.

Hey, Yahoo News had the heading "3 key questions for NFL after judge tosses video". Puns all around for this one.

The police/prosecution must have danced a jig when they saw Kraft on the video; a major chance for publicity. But with no evidence of trafficking at all (later admitted by a state prosecutor), was this just a anti-prostitution agenda all along for someone? Something definitely stinks in the way they managed this.

j8wk2feszrnpao · 16-05-2019 09:43PM

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Cardinals CB Patrick Peterson suspended six games

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000001031036/article/cardinals-cb-patrick-peterson-suspended-six-games

"The suspension will represent the first games missed during Peterson's nine-year career." Has done pretty well to avoid significant injuries.

Anyone know if Ndamukong Suh is going to sign with anyone? Doubt he'll accept the vet minimum, so not sure who out there will pay him.

Billy86 · 16-05-2019 10:25PM

I'm a bit confused as to why he only has min type deals (most likely). He is getting up in years a bit but is stilll a quality player.

Foxtrol · 17-05-2019 12:44PM

Billy86 wrote: »

I'm a bit confused as to why he only has min type deals (most likely). He is getting up in years a bit but is stilll a quality player.

His effort during the regular season last year looked questionable, but he played well in the play-offs.

I'm guessing teams will get interested in him more during camp, when they get a chance to assess their own players or someone picks up an injury. This time of the year is rarely when players get decent money, they're much better off waiting it out now.

D9Male · 17-05-2019 02:03PM

I heard on a podcast that Suh has not been considering low offers, which is why he is still on the market. Below is the amount of cash he has taken home by year since entering the league:

2010 $3.1mm
2011 $25.8mm
2012 $10.4mm
2013 $12.3mm
2014 $12.7mm
2015 $26.5mm
2016 $13.5mm
2017 $20mm
2018 $14.5mm

So when you have coined over $135mm over the last 9 years, it is easy to understand why you wouldn't want to put your body through another year of punishment.

He won't be getting anything approaching vet minimum would be my guess.

Foxtrol · 17-05-2019 02:23PM

D9Male wrote: »

I heard on a podcast that Suh has not been considering low offers, which is why he is still on the market. Below is the amount of cash he has taken home by year since entering the league:

2010 $3.1mm
2011 $25.8mm
2012 $10.4mm
2013 $12.3mm
2014 $12.7mm
2015 $26.5mm
2016 $13.5mm
2017 $20mm
2018 $14.5mm

So when you have coined over $135mm over the last 9 years, it is easy to understand why you wouldn't want to put your body through another year of punishment.

He won't be getting anything approaching vet minimum would be my guess.

If he was to take a lower deal he might as well hold out until mid season and see how things are stacking up and join one of the favourites.

eagle eye · 17-05-2019 02:40PM

You see it's quite clear that Suh doesn't give a damn about winning things, all that matters is the green.

The Weird, Wacky and Awesome World of the NFL - General Banter thread V3

Comments