Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Grade the draft 2017

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Pre_hungover View Post

    I think that they both learned something that night.
    no truer words
    potential targets for Bengals #1 overall pick in 2018:
    QB's- Sam Darnold, Josh Rosen, Josh Allen, Mason Rudolf
    OT's- Orlando Brown, Connor Williams, Mike McGlinchey

    Comment


    • #62
      Former Oklahoma running back Joe Mixon reached a civil settlement agreement Friday with the woman he punched almost three years ago ... end of story

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by #1 italian fan View Post
        end of story
        hallelujah!!
        potential targets for Bengals #1 overall pick in 2018:
        QB's- Sam Darnold, Josh Rosen, Josh Allen, Mason Rudolf
        OT's- Orlando Brown, Connor Williams, Mike McGlinchey

        Comment


        • #64
          It is immoral to respond to words with violence against that person unless it was self defense. Just stop the apologetics. He was wrong. End. Stop. My lord people. He was wrong. I was immoral and there is no defense for his action.
          2013 Whodey Keeper League Regular Season Champion
          2013 Yahoo Whodey League Regular Season Champion

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Pre_hungover View Post
            Needing to defend himself? No. He did not NEED to defend himself.

            Have his rights thrown out because it's a female that assaults him? Not just no, but Hell no. Good luck trying to prove that in a courtroom.

            I think that they both learned something that night.
            Ok let me explain this to you in legal terms. It takes two parts of a crime in order to convict someone, Mens Rea and Actus Reus. Mens Rea basically means that a person has intent, and Actus Reus means they committed the action. On that night Mixon admitted that him and the girl had some kind of argument outside the restaurant that upset him so much that he felt compelled to go inside to confront her. Right there he committed Mens Rea. He could have simply just left, but instead being a hot head he went inside. Then while inside they got into another confrontation, which would have been avoided if Mixon hadn't gone in the restaurant, at which point he took a violent swing at the girl's face breaking bones. He then committed Actus Reus. So a couple things here. Why couldn't he claim self-defense? Well for one he PUT HIMSELF IN THE SITUATION INTENTIONALLY knowing they had already had a confrontation. Secondly, in any court of law a jury is not going to watch that tape and decide that the actions of that girl in that tape justified Mixon's violent punch to the face.

            Let's put this in perspective, if any person in the criminal justice system did what Mixon did, to an unarmed female, or male, punching them in the face and breaking bones in their face, not only would they be fired, they would be prosecuted for assault, and their careers would be over.

            Now he deserves a second chance, and the fact he just now settled an agreement with her is kind of funny... almost as if they were waiting for him to get drafted to get enough money to pay her off... but let's quit forgiving people for constantly breaking the law. Every time you minimize the actions of someone to justify giving them a second chance you're just opening the door to continue to forgive future actions and never really hold someone accountable. Which seems to be what Mike Brown and Marvin Lewis have fallen into.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Lewdog View Post
              Ok let me explain this to you in legal terms. It takes two parts of a crime in order to convict someone, Mens Rea and Actus Reus. Mens Rea basically means that a person has intent, and Actus Reus means they committed the action. On that night Mixon admitted that him and the girl had some kind of argument outside the restaurant that upset him so much that he felt compelled to go inside to confront her. Right there he committed Mens Rea. He could have simply just left, but instead being a hot head he went inside. Then while inside they got into another confrontation, which would have been avoided if Mixon hadn't gone in the restaurant, at which point he took a violent swing at the girl's face breaking bones. He then committed Actus Reus. So a couple things here. Why couldn't he claim self-defense? Well for one he PUT HIMSELF IN THE SITUATION INTENTIONALLY knowing they had already had a confrontation.
              He didn't go to confront her. She went inside to talk to the guy he came there with. Which is who Mixon went inside to go talk to.
              Joe Mixon tells his side to the police which includes the confrontation in the parking lot.

              Here is the fuzz explaining her side to Mixon

              Here's her lawyer constantly making her stick to the script

              About 15 minutes it jumps ahead about one minute, strange to omit one minute out of a 52 minute video
              Just before the half hour mark, her lawyer claims the Hernandez accusations in high school as fact(he later recanted his accusations)
              It looked like to me that . . .
              He walked in and she called him over. He stood there and definitely not looking confrontational. The witness at the table said that the gay kid motioned to Mixon and said "Can you believe this N____R?" to the witness. He did admit that's when he called her friend a faggot when he was turning to leave, but what I've learned is you can say anything and still no one is allowed to touch you. So when he turns to leave and says that, SHE pushes him, escalating the situation by turning it into a physical altercation. If she doesn't push him, he's walking out the door. He fakes a punch to scare her off and she smacks him.
              We both could have handled things differently. I believe if we had a chance to go back to that moment in time, the situation would not have ended the way it did.
              That's her words from last week and that's pretty much right along with what I was saying from my first post on this topic.

              18 years old, man. It was in July, before he even went to his first class at OU. That'll be over three years since the incident when the season starts. Three full school years ago.
              Secondly, in any court of law a jury is not going to watch that tape and decide that the actions of that girl in that tape justified Mixon's violent punch to the face.

              Let's put this in perspective, if any person in the criminal justice system did what Mixon did, to an unarmed female, or male, punching them in the face and breaking bones in their face, not only would they be fired, they would be prosecuted for assault, and their careers would be over.
              Why would someone in the criminal justice system be under harsher laws than an 18 year old student? How many 18 year old attorneys are there making rash decisions at 2:40 in the morning? Quit acting like your opinion equates to fact. Did you ever watch the OJ trial or the Rodney King verdict? Who predicted those outcomes?
              Now after watching all of that crap, I'm going to go watch some Sinatra hosting the Tonight show(George Burns, Angie Dickinson, Carroll O'Conner and the great Don Rickles) and then enjoy the rest of my evening recording records into my computer.
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYE6JRzqq70
              Only users lose drugs

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Pre_hungover View Post
                He didn't go to confront her. She went inside to talk to the guy he came there with. Which is who Mixon went inside to go talk to.
                Joe Mixon tells his side to the police which includes the confrontation in the parking lot.

                Here is the fuzz explaining her side to Mixon

                Here's her lawyer constantly making her stick to the script

                About 15 minutes it jumps ahead about one minute, strange to omit one minute out of a 52 minute video
                Just before the half hour mark, her lawyer claims the Hernandez accusations in high school as fact(he later recanted his accusations)
                It looked like to me that . . .
                He walked in and she called him over. He stood there and definitely not looking confrontational. The witness at the table said that the gay kid motioned to Mixon and said "Can you believe this N____R?" to the witness. He did admit that's when he called her friend a faggot when he was turning to leave, but what I've learned is you can say anything and still no one is allowed to touch you. So when he turns to leave and says that, SHE pushes him, escalating the situation by turning it into a physical altercation. If she doesn't push him, he's walking out the door. He fakes a punch to scare her off and she smacks him.That's her words from last week and that's pretty much right along with what I was saying from my first post on this topic.

                18 years old, man. It was in July, before he even went to his first class at OU. That'll be over three years since the incident when the season starts. Three full school years ago.
                Why would someone in the criminal justice system be under harsher laws than an 18 year old student? How many 18 year old attorneys are there making rash decisions at 2:40 in the morning? Quit acting like your opinion equates to fact. Did you ever watch the OJ trial or the Rodney King verdict? Who predicted those outcomes?
                Now after watching all of that crap, I'm going to go watch some Sinatra hosting the Tonight show(George Burns, Angie Dickinson, Carroll O'Conner and the great Don Rickles) and then enjoy the rest of my evening recording records into my computer.
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYE6JRzqq70
                It is a FACT. If anyone in Law Enforcement or some sort of Criminal Justice position would have violently hit an unarmed person that simply pushed and threw a slap at them, they would not only be fired, they would be sued by the victim, they would be crucified by the public, and they would be charged with assault. FACT.

                You are equating the Rodney king trial to this? Are you kidding?

                Comment


                • #68
                  everybody just stop.

                  move on.

                  for all of our sakes.

                  if he ####s up, THEN we can rehash it.

                  enough is enough.

                  signed
                  Spicoli (aka the big Kahuna)
                  potential targets for Bengals #1 overall pick in 2018:
                  QB's- Sam Darnold, Josh Rosen, Josh Allen, Mason Rudolf
                  OT's- Orlando Brown, Connor Williams, Mike McGlinchey

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Yes. Time to move on.
                    "The History of the National Football League proves that most games are won in the last two minutes of the first half or the second half." -- Vince Lombardi.

                    "You're either incredibly prepared, or incredibly physically talented."

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      As you all may know, I work in the field of civil litigation. This is not the same As criminal, mind you. Criminal requires beyond reasonable doubt. Civil only a preponderance of evidence. And, no one is found "guilty"or "not guilty" in civil--rather a finding for or against a Plaintiff.

                      In this case--and I have read the filings in the civil litigation for this incident--the girl (Plaintiff) sued Mixon for certain constitutional rights violations, aimed at making him liable to her for acts of "negligence", "wanton and willful conduct" and "intention infliction of emotional distress". Curiously, even with the video, the court found inconsistencies in both the Plaintiff's and the witnesses' accounts. And, since Plaintiff's lawyers failed to add the violation of "battery" as a cause of action, they dismissed the counts of "negligence" and WW Conduct".

                      I haven't found the details of the settlement between the two, however it is reasonable to believe she may have had a more difficult time convincing a jury of those violations. I see this situation several times a year--Showdown until someone monetarily blinks.

                      I also see, in the original complaint (filed in California, where Mixon has residence) that she sued the restaurant where the incident occurred too. "Insufficient security". They did not show up in the Oklahoma re-filed case--leading me to believe they may have paid something to her as well. I still have not seen who ponied up the money for Mixon, unless he had his own insurance. The University was not sued, so they would have no skin in the game--or any obligation to defend or pay on Mixon's behalf. I will keep looking.
                      "This game isn't worth it. The National Football League isn't worth it. There's golf to be played and tennis to be served up and other things to be done out there besides worryin' about a friggin' football game."----The prophet Sam Wyche

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Le Tigre View Post
                        As you all may know, I work in the field of civil litigation. This is not the same As criminal, mind you. Criminal requires beyond reasonable doubt. Civil only a preponderance of evidence. And, no one is found "guilty"or "not guilty" in civil--rather a finding for or against a Plaintiff.

                        In this case--and I have read the filings in the civil litigation for this incident--the girl (Plaintiff) sued Mixon for certain constitutional rights violations, aimed at making him liable to her for acts of "negligence", "wanton and willful conduct" and "intention infliction of emotional distress". Curiously, even with the video, the court found inconsistencies in both the Plaintiff's and the witnesses' accounts. And, since Plaintiff's lawyers failed to add the violation of "battery" as a cause of action, they dismissed the counts of "negligence" and WW Conduct".

                        I haven't found the details of the settlement between the two, however it is reasonable to believe she may have had a more difficult time convincing a jury of those violations. I see this situation several times a year--Showdown until someone monetarily blinks.

                        I also see, in the original complaint (filed in California, where Mixon has residence) that she sued the restaurant where the incident occurred too. "Insufficient security". They did not show up in the Oklahoma re-filed case--leading me to believe they may have paid something to her as well. I still have not seen who ponied up the money for Mixon, unless he had his own insurance. The University was not sued, so they would have no skin in the game--or any obligation to defend or pay on Mixon's behalf. I will keep looking.
                        I'd bet his agent ponied up the money so she would take less now, before he got his first contract and was worth more money.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          LT, asking out of pure legal ignorance here, but since she was asking for around $75,000 and two of her three complaints/accusation/charges were dropped, does that mean she was left to fight for $25,000 or did she still have a claim for the full lot? Outside of smoking weed(which is now legal in Alaska), I don't break the law so this whole process is new to me.

                          Originally posted by Lewdog View Post
                          It is a FACT. If anyone in Law Enforcement or some sort of Criminal Justice position would have violently hit an unarmed person that simply pushed and threw a slap at them, they would not only be fired, they would be sued by the victim, they would be crucified by the public, and they would be charged with assault. FACT.

                          You are equating the Rodney king trial to this? Are you kidding?
                          No. I'm equating your confidence in what you think is right or wrong to all of the legal experts that said on TV everyday how those cases were going to end and almost everyone of those lawyers blabbing on TV were flat out wrong. No one called the verdict on Rodney King and the only reason Greta Van Susteren went from occasional CNN contributor to a full time co-hosting gig was because she was the only one on TV that said from the beginning that OJ Simpson had a good chance to walk. All of the other "legal experts" were left with dumb looks on their faces and nothing to say after months of "open/shut case".

                          I'm done

                          I watched my first Joe Mixon highlight reel earlier today, WOW!
                          The catches at 2:10 and 3:40 have me excited to see him play.

                          He reminds me of a cross between Eric Dickerson and Marshall Faulk. They all seem to have/had a gear that no other RBs possess.
                          Only users lose drugs

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Pre_hungover View Post
                            LT, asking out of pure legal ignorance here, but since she was asking for around $75,000 and two of her three complaints/accusation/charges were dropped, does that mean she was left to fight for $25,000 or did she still have a claim for the full lot? Outside of smoking weed(which is now legal in Alaska), I don't break the law so this whole process is new to me.


                            No. I'm equating your confidence in what you think is right or wrong to all of the legal experts that said on TV everyday how those cases were going to end and almost everyone of those lawyers blabbing on TV were flat out wrong. No one called the verdict on Rodney King and the only reason Greta Van Susteren went from occasional CNN contributor to a full time co-hosting gig was because she was the only one on TV that said from the beginning that OJ Simpson had a good chance to walk. All of the other "legal experts" were left with dumb looks on their faces and nothing to say after months of "open/shut case".

                            I'm done

                            I watched my first Joe Mixon highlight reel earlier today, WOW!
                            The catches at 2:10 and 3:40 have me excited to see him play.

                            He reminds me of a cross between Eric Dickerson and Marshall Faulk. They all seem to have/had a gear that no other RBs possess.
                            A lot of changes has occurred in the legal system since the Rodney King trial, not just in general, but specifically related to and because of it. At this point I'm not arguing with you but giving you some history and background. Because of the outcome of the Rodney King beating and subsequent trial, the then mayor of Los Angeles, Tom Bradley set up the Christopher Commission which investigated every aspect of the LAPD and set up new guidelines that would forever change the police force there and cause a ripple of change across the entire country.

                            http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/18...ng-change.html

                            It is important to note, that part of the reason that the beating of King made such an impact, was because it was one of the first ever captured on video and shared throughout the media, which is now something that is very common place, and a major reason just why so many of the bad law enforcement that use excessive force get weeded out by the ever recording eye of the public today. It seems there are cameras everywhere and everyone these days has a cell phone that can start recording in seconds.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Pre: in most states, there is a de facto "threshold" of an amount asked for in what are called "compensatory damages". The demand in this case wasn't just $75k, it was "in excess of" $75k...meaning the court would have to allow awards of any amount past $75k. Comp damages are for medical costs, physical injury(in this case), emotional suffering, and such. They also probably sought punitive damages--those being a "punishment" award for outrageous acts. Insurance does not pay puni's, so any settlement did not include these for sure. In short: she could have been awarded any sum a jury would have deemed appropriate.

                              Lew: an agent operates in the interest of a client, but unless he decided on his own to finance a settlement, he certainly would have had no obligation to do so. Again, I have no clue where Mixon's money came from. Courts officially do not care who pays the freight for settlements, but for mediations and court-ordered settlement conferences, they want all "parties with settlement authority" have to show up. Usually, that is insurance, but I was thinking how doubtful an 18-year old college student/athlete would have the sort of personal liability insurance needed at the time of the incident. Remember: he could not have gotten insurance AFTER the incident in order to cover this event--as it would have occurred prior to the inception date of the policy. Like I said, I am going to see if the source of the funding ever shows up.
                              "This game isn't worth it. The National Football League isn't worth it. There's golf to be played and tennis to be served up and other things to be done out there besides worryin' about a friggin' football game."----The prophet Sam Wyche

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Le Tigre View Post
                                Pre: in most states, there is a de facto "threshold" of an amount asked for in what are called "compensatory damages". The demand in this case wasn't just $75k, it was "in excess of" $75k...meaning the court would have to allow awards of any amount past $75k. Comp damages are for medical costs, physical injury(in this case), emotional suffering, and such. They also probably sought punitive damages--those being a "punishment" award for outrageous acts. Insurance does not pay puni's, so any settlement did not include these for sure. In short: she could have been awarded any sum a jury would have deemed appropriate.

                                Lew: an agent operates in the interest of a client, but unless he decided on his own to finance a settlement, he certainly would have had no obligation to do so. Again, I have no clue where Mixon's money came from. Courts officially do not care who pays the freight for settlements, but for mediations and court-ordered settlement conferences, they want all "parties with settlement authority" have to show up. Usually, that is insurance, but I was thinking how doubtful an 18-year old college student/athlete would have the sort of personal liability insurance needed at the time of the incident. Remember: he could not have gotten insurance AFTER the incident in order to cover this event--as it would have occurred prior to the inception date of the policy. Like I said, I am going to see if the source of the funding ever shows up.
                                Well there are a few things here. Many times places will give athletes loans based solely on the idea of them getting drafted. So it could have come from that. I do believe however it more than likely came from his agent. Peter Schaffer is Mixon's agent, who was part of a reality tv show and apparently has some big name clients. So logically it would be smart for both parties for Mixon to pay off the girl before he signs his NFL contract and is worth more money and she decides she wants more for it to go away. I did learn however from reading about the Raider's pick Conely from OSU, the NFL can not punish college players for stuff that they did before being drafted.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X