Author Topic: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)  (Read 30556 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
« Reply #135 on: March 26, 2016, 06:39:05 PM »

Offline Csfan1984

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4767
  • Tommy Points: 514
Yes there is something you are missing... that lie does not violate any criminal statute that I know of, therefore there is no crime and no jail for Goodell.

What you do have though might be actionable fraud in a civil case. There is a cause of action for fraudulent concealment that may be brought against the league by players that were 'lied to' by the league and suffered concussions as a result of the lies. Of course these players would have to prove that if they had known about the danger they would not have played the way they played, or played at all.
You're saying there is no possible crime here? Like if you're at work and your boss hands you a stick of dynamite and tells you it's a perfectly safe thing, and please light it up if the lights go out....that's a crime right? This is obviously not as extreme as that, but if he withholds serious information about their bodily danger....I'm just not sure I understand the difference here. Are you saying it's not like the dynamite thing and more like...something far less extreme like ...having a slippery floor and declining to put up one of those wet floor signs?  Concussions seem like a pretty dangerous deal to me, and if the players have been led to believe it is safe, when they knew it wasn't...that doesn't just sound like fraud.  It seems in your view the bar is really high to send someone to jail for creating a very unsafe work place and then lying about it.
I think employers are protected to some degree but they can be sued and be made to pay fines. Believe jail time only comes when they actually break laws and not simply violating buiness practices. Of course there are always exceptions.
My Top 5
Trade targets.      Draft.                     FAs
1. Davis              1.Fultz              1. Griffin*
2. Cousins          2. Tatum          2. Hayward
3. Butler              3. Jackson       3. Millsap
4. George            4. Ball               4. Lowry
5. Favors             5. Isaac            5. Gali

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
« Reply #136 on: March 26, 2016, 07:22:17 PM »

Offline Ogaju

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5990
  • Tommy Points: 443
Yes there is something you are missing... that lie does not violate any criminal statute that I know of, therefore there is no crime and no jail for Goodell.

What you do have though might be actionable fraud in a civil case. There is a cause of action for fraudulent concealment that may be brought against the league by players that were 'lied to' by the league and suffered concussions as a result of the lies. Of course these players would have to prove that if they had known about the danger they would not have played the way they played, or played at all.
You're saying there is no possible crime here? Like if you're at work and your boss hands you a stick of dynamite and tells you it's a perfectly safe thing, and please light it up if the lights go out....that's a crime right? This is obviously not as extreme as that, but if he withholds serious information about their bodily danger....I'm just not sure I understand the difference here. Are you saying it's not like the dynamite thing and more like...something far less extreme like ...having a slippery floor and declining to put up one of those wet floor signs?  Concussions seem like a pretty dangerous deal to me, and if the players have been led to believe it is safe, when they knew it wasn't...that doesn't just sound like fraud.  It seems in your view the bar is really high to send someone to jail for creating a very unsafe work place and then lying about it.

well the more facts you add to make the conduct egregious I believe you can make a crime out of it. If Goodell had incontrovertible evidence about defective helmets for example and he knew that the defect was so bad that it could lead to serious injury or death, if he then deliberately buries the information and a serious injury or death occurs, I can see a criminal charge from that -- negligent homicide in the case of a death occurring.

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
« Reply #137 on: March 26, 2016, 08:34:07 PM »

Offline eja117

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16782
  • Tommy Points: 1038
    • Celtics Green myspace
Yes there is something you are missing... that lie does not violate any criminal statute that I know of, therefore there is no crime and no jail for Goodell.

What you do have though might be actionable fraud in a civil case. There is a cause of action for fraudulent concealment that may be brought against the league by players that were 'lied to' by the league and suffered concussions as a result of the lies. Of course these players would have to prove that if they had known about the danger they would not have played the way they played, or played at all.
You're saying there is no possible crime here? Like if you're at work and your boss hands you a stick of dynamite and tells you it's a perfectly safe thing, and please light it up if the lights go out....that's a crime right? This is obviously not as extreme as that, but if he withholds serious information about their bodily danger....I'm just not sure I understand the difference here. Are you saying it's not like the dynamite thing and more like...something far less extreme like ...having a slippery floor and declining to put up one of those wet floor signs?  Concussions seem like a pretty dangerous deal to me, and if the players have been led to believe it is safe, when they knew it wasn't...that doesn't just sound like fraud.  It seems in your view the bar is really high to send someone to jail for creating a very unsafe work place and then lying about it.

well the more facts you add to make the conduct egregious I believe you can make a crime out of it. If Goodell had incontrovertible evidence about defective helmets for example and he knew that the defect was so bad that it could lead to serious injury or death, if he then deliberately buries the information and a serious injury or death occurs, I can see a criminal charge from that -- negligent homicide in the case of a death occurring.
I see what you're saying. But he does have players dying young on him now and donating their brains to science. Junior Seau. Kevin Turner. I think the list will grow. And these aren't just a bunch of dumb guys the way maybe some people think. They are absolutely able to hire some very good investigators and lawyers.

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
« Reply #138 on: March 26, 2016, 08:48:32 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31345
  • Tommy Points: -28148
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Yes there is something you are missing... that lie does not violate any criminal statute that I know of, therefore there is no crime and no jail for Goodell.

What you do have though might be actionable fraud in a civil case. There is a cause of action for fraudulent concealment that may be brought against the league by players that were 'lied to' by the league and suffered concussions as a result of the lies. Of course these players would have to prove that if they had known about the danger they would not have played the way they played, or played at all.
You're saying there is no possible crime here? Like if you're at work and your boss hands you a stick of dynamite and tells you it's a perfectly safe thing, and please light it up if the lights go out....that's a crime right? This is obviously not as extreme as that, but if he withholds serious information about their bodily danger....I'm just not sure I understand the difference here. Are you saying it's not like the dynamite thing and more like...something far less extreme like ...having a slippery floor and declining to put up one of those wet floor signs?  Concussions seem like a pretty dangerous deal to me, and if the players have been led to believe it is safe, when they knew it wasn't...that doesn't just sound like fraud.  It seems in your view the bar is really high to send someone to jail for creating a very unsafe work place and then lying about it.

well the more facts you add to make the conduct egregious I believe you can make a crime out of it. If Goodell had incontrovertible evidence about defective helmets for example and he knew that the defect was so bad that it could lead to serious injury or death, if he then deliberately buries the information and a serious injury or death occurs, I can see a criminal charge from that -- negligent homicide in the case of a death occurring.
I see what you're saying. But he does have players dying young on him now and donating their brains to science. Junior Seau. Kevin Turner. I think the list will grow. And these aren't just a bunch of dumb guys the way maybe some people think. They are absolutely able to hire some very good investigators and lawyers.

Players know they are participating in an inherently dangerous sport.  I can't imagine any criminal culpability found simply because an executive has been slower than he should have been to acknowledge a links between concussions and long-term brain injury.

If no tobacco executives ended up in jail, there is pretty much no chance of Roger Goddell ever being indicted, let alone convicted.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
« Reply #139 on: March 26, 2016, 08:55:42 PM »

Online hwangjini_1

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11067
  • Tommy Points: 1351
  • bammokja
Yes there is something you are missing... that lie does not violate any criminal statute that I know of, therefore there is no crime and no jail for Goodell.

What you do have though might be actionable fraud in a civil case. There is a cause of action for fraudulent concealment that may be brought against the league by players that were 'lied to' by the league and suffered concussions as a result of the lies. Of course these players would have to prove that if they had known about the danger they would not have played the way they played, or played at all.
You're saying there is no possible crime here? Like if you're at work and your boss hands you a stick of dynamite and tells you it's a perfectly safe thing, and please light it up if the lights go out....that's a crime right? This is obviously not as extreme as that, but if he withholds serious information about their bodily danger....I'm just not sure I understand the difference here. Are you saying it's not like the dynamite thing and more like...something far less extreme like ...having a slippery floor and declining to put up one of those wet floor signs?  Concussions seem like a pretty dangerous deal to me, and if the players have been led to believe it is safe, when they knew it wasn't...that doesn't just sound like fraud.  It seems in your view the bar is really high to send someone to jail for creating a very unsafe work place and then lying about it.

well the more facts you add to make the conduct egregious I believe you can make a crime out of it. If Goodell had incontrovertible evidence about defective helmets for example and he knew that the defect was so bad that it could lead to serious injury or death, if he then deliberately buries the information and a serious injury or death occurs, I can see a criminal charge from that -- negligent homicide in the case of a death occurring.
I see what you're saying. But he does have players dying young on him now and donating their brains to science. Junior Seau. Kevin Turner. I think the list will grow. And these aren't just a bunch of dumb guys the way maybe some people think. They are absolutely able to hire some very good investigators and lawyers.

Players know they are participating in an inherently dangerous sport.  I can't imagine any criminal culpability found simply because an executive has been slower than he should have been to acknowledge a links between concussions and long-term brain injury.

If no tobacco executives ended up in jail, there is pretty much no chance of Roger Goddell ever being indicted, let alone convicted.
and therein lies a fundamental shortcoming in the US legal system. folks such as them, and the oil industry, and tobacco, and so many corporations should inside prisons today. but then, how much of the US legal system takes as its unspoken assumptions the values and priorities of capitalism and western enlightenment?

thank goodness god has special places in hell for these folks.
I believe Gandhi is the only person who knew about real democracy not democracy as the right to go and buy what you want, but democracy as the responsibility to be accountable to everyone around you. Democracy begins with freedom from hunger, freedom from unemployment, freedom from fear, and freedom from hatred.
- Vandana Shiva

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
« Reply #140 on: March 26, 2016, 08:56:39 PM »

Offline eja117

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16782
  • Tommy Points: 1038
    • Celtics Green myspace
Yes there is something you are missing... that lie does not violate any criminal statute that I know of, therefore there is no crime and no jail for Goodell.

What you do have though might be actionable fraud in a civil case. There is a cause of action for fraudulent concealment that may be brought against the league by players that were 'lied to' by the league and suffered concussions as a result of the lies. Of course these players would have to prove that if they had known about the danger they would not have played the way they played, or played at all.
You're saying there is no possible crime here? Like if you're at work and your boss hands you a stick of dynamite and tells you it's a perfectly safe thing, and please light it up if the lights go out....that's a crime right? This is obviously not as extreme as that, but if he withholds serious information about their bodily danger....I'm just not sure I understand the difference here. Are you saying it's not like the dynamite thing and more like...something far less extreme like ...having a slippery floor and declining to put up one of those wet floor signs?  Concussions seem like a pretty dangerous deal to me, and if the players have been led to believe it is safe, when they knew it wasn't...that doesn't just sound like fraud.  It seems in your view the bar is really high to send someone to jail for creating a very unsafe work place and then lying about it.

well the more facts you add to make the conduct egregious I believe you can make a crime out of it. If Goodell had incontrovertible evidence about defective helmets for example and he knew that the defect was so bad that it could lead to serious injury or death, if he then deliberately buries the information and a serious injury or death occurs, I can see a criminal charge from that -- negligent homicide in the case of a death occurring.
I see what you're saying. But he does have players dying young on him now and donating their brains to science. Junior Seau. Kevin Turner. I think the list will grow. And these aren't just a bunch of dumb guys the way maybe some people think. They are absolutely able to hire some very good investigators and lawyers.

Players know they are participating in an inherently dangerous sport.  I can't imagine any criminal culpability found simply because an executive has been slower than he should have been to acknowledge a links between concussions and long-term brain injury.

If no tobacco executives ended up in jail, there is pretty much no chance of Roger Goddell ever being indicted, let alone convicted.
I see what you mean. Just understating a level of danger isn't exactly the same thing as telling a coal miner a very dangerous mine is safe. 

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
« Reply #141 on: March 26, 2016, 10:02:37 PM »

Online hwangjini_1

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11067
  • Tommy Points: 1351
  • bammokja
Yes there is something you are missing... that lie does not violate any criminal statute that I know of, therefore there is no crime and no jail for Goodell.

What you do have though might be actionable fraud in a civil case. There is a cause of action for fraudulent concealment that may be brought against the league by players that were 'lied to' by the league and suffered concussions as a result of the lies. Of course these players would have to prove that if they had known about the danger they would not have played the way they played, or played at all.
You're saying there is no possible crime here? Like if you're at work and your boss hands you a stick of dynamite and tells you it's a perfectly safe thing, and please light it up if the lights go out....that's a crime right? This is obviously not as extreme as that, but if he withholds serious information about their bodily danger....I'm just not sure I understand the difference here. Are you saying it's not like the dynamite thing and more like...something far less extreme like ...having a slippery floor and declining to put up one of those wet floor signs?  Concussions seem like a pretty dangerous deal to me, and if the players have been led to believe it is safe, when they knew it wasn't...that doesn't just sound like fraud.  It seems in your view the bar is really high to send someone to jail for creating a very unsafe work place and then lying about it.

well the more facts you add to make the conduct egregious I believe you can make a crime out of it. If Goodell had incontrovertible evidence about defective helmets for example and he knew that the defect was so bad that it could lead to serious injury or death, if he then deliberately buries the information and a serious injury or death occurs, I can see a criminal charge from that -- negligent homicide in the case of a death occurring.
I see what you're saying. But he does have players dying young on him now and donating their brains to science. Junior Seau. Kevin Turner. I think the list will grow. And these aren't just a bunch of dumb guys the way maybe some people think. They are absolutely able to hire some very good investigators and lawyers.

Players know they are participating in an inherently dangerous sport.  I can't imagine any criminal culpability found simply because an executive has been slower than he should have been to acknowledge a links between concussions and long-term brain injury.

If no tobacco executives ended up in jail, there is pretty much no chance of Roger Goddell ever being indicted, let alone convicted.
I see what you mean. Just understating a level of danger isn't exactly the same thing as telling a coal miner a very dangerous mine is safe.
but neither is a substitute for all parties being concerned with the general safety of fellow human beings, in this case workers.
I believe Gandhi is the only person who knew about real democracy not democracy as the right to go and buy what you want, but democracy as the responsibility to be accountable to everyone around you. Democracy begins with freedom from hunger, freedom from unemployment, freedom from fear, and freedom from hatred.
- Vandana Shiva

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
« Reply #142 on: March 26, 2016, 10:30:55 PM »

Offline Ogaju

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5990
  • Tommy Points: 443
the issue here is exactly what Roy suggests, there is a choice here. The players chose to play this sports with knowledge of its inherent danger. They are not unwilling participants, I bet there is also the element that that they paid very well to play. To get close to criminal culpability, you will need some serious malfeasance by Goodell such as hiding or altering damaging scientific evidence. It has to be pretty egregious to get a criminal indictment.

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
« Reply #143 on: April 02, 2017, 07:06:40 PM »

Offline eja117

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16782
  • Tommy Points: 1038
    • Celtics Green myspace
I can't believe it's been a year since we used this thread.


Anyway....at the end of the film Gran Torino.

Is there sorta a plot hole there? It makes it seem a gang sorta gets tricked into committing a violent crime against a good guy in full view of witnesses and that they'll all go to jail and that will allow other good people in the neighborhood to grow up well and in peace.

But wait a second.

Realistically there is some time before the police get there. I think plenty of time to get rid of the weapons.

Next....the dude came onto their property at night and essentially provoked/threatened them.

Does stand your ground apply here? (It takes place in Detroit.) Could it in some places?

Next....if I'm the lawyer I mean you can be all like "Did this guy ever call you anything racist? Did he have a history of waving guns around? Did he ever hit any of you or point a gun at you?"

Next...I mean...is there a way for a lawyer to be like "My client was in a well armed home. He was behind a window. He shot at the guy's feet to scare him away and had every good reason to. My guy is totally innocent, or perhaps guilty of protecting himself and his friends."

I mean what if they do an autopsy and determine only one or two bullets actually killed him but there were 9 gang members.

I mean how exactly does this all sort itself out?  Plea deal for involuntary manslaughter? Attempted murder?

It seems almost the whole case is based on eye witness account. Will the gang members most likely point fingers at each other?

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
« Reply #144 on: April 02, 2017, 07:23:00 PM »

Offline More Banners

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3169
  • Tommy Points: 194
I can't believe it's been a year since we used this thread.


Anyway....at the end of the film Gran Torino.

Is there sorta a plot hole there? It makes it seem a gang sorta gets tricked into committing a violent crime against a good guy in full view of witnesses and that they'll all go to jail and that will allow other good people in the neighborhood to grow up well and in peace.

But wait a second.

Realistically there is some time before the police get there. I think plenty of time to get rid of the weapons.

Next....the dude came onto their property at night and essentially provoked/threatened them.

Does stand your ground apply here? (It takes place in Detroit.) Could it in some places?

Next....if I'm the lawyer I mean you can be all like "Did this guy ever call you anything racist? Did he have a history of waving guns around? Did he ever hit any of you or point a gun at you?"

Next...I mean...is there a way for a lawyer to be like "My client was in a well armed home. He was behind a window. He shot at the guy's feet to scare him away and had every good reason to. My guy is totally innocent, or perhaps guilty of protecting himself and his friends."

I mean what if they do an autopsy and determine only one or two bullets actually killed him but there were 9 gang members.

I mean how exactly does this all sort itself out?  Plea deal for involuntary manslaughter? Attempted murder?

It seems almost the whole case is based on eye witness account. Will the gang members most likely point fingers at each other?

First of all, great movie.

Second, if I remember correctly, Eastwood was in the street. And unarmed.

Next, I don't think cops and courts appreciate the judicious use of warning shots like a naval shot over the bow. Any discharge of a weapon is an extremely risky business thing to do, legally speaking, which is why it needs to be a legit life or death self defense situation in any place, including in ones own home. If someone walks into your house, grabs a can o suds, sits in YOUR chair and starts watching a LAKERS game, you can't shoot him even though, obviously, being a Lakers fan and drinking your beer should be enough justification.

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
« Reply #145 on: April 02, 2017, 07:33:57 PM »

Offline Csfan1984

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4767
  • Tommy Points: 514
I can't believe it's been a year since we used this thread.


Anyway....at the end of the film Gran Torino.

Is there sorta a plot hole there? It makes it seem a gang sorta gets tricked into committing a violent crime against a good guy in full view of witnesses and that they'll all go to jail and that will allow other good people in the neighborhood to grow up well and in peace.

But wait a second.

Realistically there is some time before the police get there. I think plenty of time to get rid of the weapons.

Next....the dude came onto their property at night and essentially provoked/threatened them.

Does stand your ground apply here? (It takes place in Detroit.) Could it in some places?

Next....if I'm the lawyer I mean you can be all like "Did this guy ever call you anything racist? Did he have a history of waving guns around? Did he ever hit any of you or point a gun at you?"

Next...I mean...is there a way for a lawyer to be like "My client was in a well armed home. He was behind a window. He shot at the guy's feet to scare him away and had every good reason to. My guy is totally innocent, or perhaps guilty of protecting himself and his friends."

I mean what if they do an autopsy and determine only one or two bullets actually killed him but there were 9 gang members.

I mean how exactly does this all sort itself out?  Plea deal for involuntary manslaughter? Attempted murder?

It seems almost the whole case is based on eye witness account. Will the gang members most likely point fingers at each other?
Prior records, illegal gun charges, as well as its an old guy means they are all done. How is an old man provoking, is what a procecutor will say. If they lash out at an old man in such a drastic way they are threats to society.

And I honestly hope they were not locked up for life but got rehabilitation and became changed people. Too many youths make dumb mistakes and choices when in a bad environment. A lot of times they are just immature and acting out then things escalate.
My Top 5
Trade targets.      Draft.                     FAs
1. Davis              1.Fultz              1. Griffin*
2. Cousins          2. Tatum          2. Hayward
3. Butler              3. Jackson       3. Millsap
4. George            4. Ball               4. Lowry
5. Favors             5. Isaac            5. Gali

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
« Reply #146 on: April 02, 2017, 08:01:38 PM »

Offline eja117

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16782
  • Tommy Points: 1038
    • Celtics Green myspace
So if we remember he moved his hands extremely fast at night. If various witnesses and defendants and like "I thought for 100% sure he was pulling a gun".....stand your ground?

He wasn't exactly a boy scout.   If the gang members have no priors?

Granted I suppose we have to get past the part where they had fired at his neighbors the night before and had beat up that girl.

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
« Reply #147 on: April 02, 2017, 08:11:40 PM »

Offline eja117

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16782
  • Tommy Points: 1038
    • Celtics Green myspace
omg.....remember the scene where the Asian girl is walking with the white boy and the 3 black guys start harassing the two of them and Clint drives up in his Ford and is like "Ever notice how sometimes you bump into someone you should never have messed with? I'm that guy." and then he pulls out a gun and then he looks at the white boy and is like "What the hell you doing? These guys don't want to be your bro and I don't blame them. Get your fake paddy azz outta here puzzy"

That kid...that's Scott Eastwood ...that is Clint's illegitimate son via a flight attendant. He first acted with Clint in Flags of our Fathers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8coq2cUn1U

I kid not

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
« Reply #148 on: April 02, 2017, 08:34:57 PM »

Offline Chief

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16605
  • Tommy Points: 1774
omg.....remember the scene where the Asian girl is walking with the white boy and the 3 black guys start harassing the two of them and Clint drives up in his Ford and is like "Ever notice how sometimes you bump into someone you should never have messed with? I'm that guy." and then he pulls out a gun and then he looks at the white boy and is like "What the hell you doing? These guys don't want to be your bro and I don't blame them. Get your fake paddy azz outta here puzzy"

That kid...that's Scott Eastwood ...that is Clint's illegitimate son via a flight attendant. He first acted with Clint in Flags of our Fathers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8coq2cUn1U

I kid not

Yes, my wife has The Longest Ride on our dvr.
Once you are labeled 'the best' you want to stay up there, and you can't do it by loafing around.
 
Larry Bird