Who is the bigger a-hole?

[THELAWFIRM226]

You really need to know exactly what happened. You've not only said the guy was involved in a murder, which was never proven as he was just found guilty of obstruction of justice for giving a misleading statement, and then said he was forced to pay.

He was never forced to pay anything. The family of one of the victims was threatening a lawsuit against him, and he settled it out of court. Whether or not he'd have been forced to pay anything is debatable, but he felt the need to settle it himself. He also made a settlement with the other family of the other victim from that night.

You want to make a judgement on a man you don't know? Fair enough. Yeah we all worked out he was there on the night, but I'm not going to sit there and judge a guy who you say was 'involved in the murder' when that was never actually proven.

Some of you yanks love to ignore the 'innocent until proven guilty' saying don't you. I'm not discriminating against all Americans, but I do see a trend in a lot of people.

It's not clear he killed anyone or was directly involved in it...he's an idiot for giving a misleading statement yes, and if you feel that's enough to say he was blatantly involved then I really hope you don't uphold the law in any form

It's called having a civil mind!

EDIT: This thread really is exposing some Pats fans anf giving us a bad tag. I really hope Ravens fans don';t judge too many of us by this thread.

Either way, even if Suggs talks a lot, at least he can back it up!

So based on your logic you probably think OJ is innocent too, right?

 

[CheeseMonkeys]

Ray Lewis Murdered someone. A HOLE!

 

[Kid~Brady]

Ray Lewis Murdered someone. A HOLE!

Prove it.

 

[UK_Pat37]

Innocent until proven guilty is a thing for the justice system in the courts.

Public opinion is something else. And why shouldn't it be? There are no practical repercussions for me connecting the dots in the case of Ray Lewis.

And I think you need to re-think how lenient you are being on the guy. You act as if the $1 million settlement was charity.

Judging someone you don't know and haven';t met, based on circumstantial accusations is done by self-righteous hypocrites who concern themselves too much with other people's lives.

I can guarantee you that $1 million settlement is pennies to what it would have cost him to drag it out in the courts. He made the best decision financially for himself, and did the right thing morally at the same time. Whether or not he did it for his own financial benefit or actual remorse is there for questioning, but not from me. I've never met the guy nor do I know what actually happened...and neither do you.

You weren't even stating the facts right. So I corrected you.

So based on your logic you probably think OJ is innocent too, right?

You cannot convict anyone of something morally on circumstantial evidence.

Your countries judicial service became a laughing stock just a few months ago when you executed a man on circumstantial evidence.

I'm not one to judge people who aren't convicted...no matter how much public opinion tilts one way stirred by the media.

 

[CheeseMonkeys]

Prove it.

:bricks: :bricks: :bricks: :bricks: :bricks: :bricks:

 

[BradyManny]

Judging someone you don't know and haven';t met, based on circumstantial accusations is done by self-righteous hypocrites who concern themselves too much with other people's lives.

No, it's really not. It's an ultimately relatively harmless exercise every person does every second of every day of their lives. It's something that self-righteous people pretend not to do, and only fools believe they are above doing. Heck, you just did it without even knowing it!

 

[THELAWFIRM226]

Judging someone you don't know and haven';t met, based on circumstantial accusations is done by self-righteous hypocrites who concern themselves too much with other people's lives.

I can guarantee you that $1 million settlement is pennies to what it would have cost him to drag it out in the courts. He made the best decision financially for himself, and did the right thing morally at the same time. Whether or not he did it for his own financial benefit or actual remorse is there for questioning, but not from me. I've never met the guy nor do I know what actually happened...and neither do you.

You weren't even stating the facts right. So I corrected you.

You keep harping on the "moral" aspect of this situation. Yet you continue to contradict yourself. You say he did the right thing "morally" but he saved himself millions of dollars in the process. He did the right thing "financially" not morally, you know nothing of the American Judicial system, because you can be convicted based upon circumstantial evidence. As for the case a few months ago, the man was guilty of murdering a police officer, quit mocking the United States judicial system. The last time I checked, the United Kingdom wasn't exactly Utopia.

 

[UK_Pat37]

Judging someone you don't know and haven';t met, based on circumstantial accusations is done by self-righteous hypocrites who concern themselves too much with other people's lives.

I can guarantee you that $1 million settlement is pennies to what it would have cost him to drag it out in the courts. He made the best decision financially for himself, and did the right thing morally at the same time. Whether or not he did it for his own financial benefit or actual remorse is there for questioning, but not from me. I've never met the guy nor do I know what actually happened...and neither do you.

You weren't even stating the facts right. So I corrected you.

You keep harping on the "moral" aspect of this situation. Yet you continue to contradict yourself. You say he did the right thing "morally" but he saved himself millions of dollars in the process. He did the right thing "financially" not morally, you know nothing of the American Judicial system, because you can be convicted based upon circumstantial evidence. As for the case a few months ago, the man was guilty of murdering a police officer, quit mocking the United States judicial system. The last time I checked, the United Kingdom wasn't exactly Utopia.

You just quoted what I said, then repeated what I said?

I said that he may have done it for financial reasons and not out of his own morals (here let me just copy and paste what I wrote):

"Whether or not he did it for his own financial benefit or actual remorse is there for questioning, but not from me. I've never met the guy nor do I know what actually happened...and neither do you."

It's also int he quote that you quoted em if you'd like to check So the general lesson of that comment was how can you judge someone on something you now zero, zilch, nada about, when you don't know the person or all the facts?

I KNOW you can be convicted on circumstantial evidence in the American Judicial System...that's why I;m mocking it I don't think it's right, especially when you can be served with a death penalty in some states...but that's really not for this thread and an entirely different debate.

As I said, my point is you don't know him, so how can you comment on his intentions? You assume, and talk like it's fact and, like I said, that's generally the act of self-righteous hypocrites who are far too concerned with judging people for their mistakes, rather than concern themselves with their own in life.

 

[THELAWFIRM226]

You just quoted what I said, then repeated what I said?

I said that he may have done it for financial reasons and not out of his own morals (here let me just copy and paste what I wrote):

"Whether or not he did it for his own financial benefit or actual remorse is there for questioning, but not from me. I've never met the guy nor do I know what actually happened...and neither do you."

It's also int he quote that you quoted em if you'd like to check So the general lesson of that comment was how can you judge someone on something you now zero, zilch, nada about, when you don't know the person or all the facts?

I KNOW you can be convicted on circumstantial evidence in the American Judicial System...that's why I;m mocking it I don't think it's right, especially when you can be served with a death penalty in some states...but that's really not for this thread and an entirely different debate.

As I said, my point is you don't know him, so how can you comment on his intentions? You assume, and talk like it's fact and, like I said, that's generally the act of self-righteous hypocrites who are far too concerned with judging people for their mistakes, rather than concern themselves with their own in life.

Fair enough, I'm sick of debating this we could both go on for hours. Go Pats! No hard feelings just a lively debate.

 

[UK_Pat37]

Fair enough, I'm sick of debating this we could both go on for hours. Go Pats! No hard feelings just a lively debate.

People can agree to disagree Totally agree...often when debating ona forum with someone you've never met, your intentions can be misconstrued....but that's all it was, a debate!

and then there was silence...

Not really, I just didn't see it as honestly worth a response. I don't know what happened...and my point is neither do you The difference between the two of us is you see it worth judging him on and I don't.......

I made my point, I don't need to keep repeating myself.

 

[Patriot_in_NY]

Who is the bigger a-hole?

Not all that tough of a question......... Suggs, by a long shot

Every time he opens his mouth, you just want to punch him in it. That's the very definition of an a-hole in my book.

Now if you put up a poll on who is gonna have the most splaning' to do to the big guy once the judgement day rolls around in order to account for being involved in the murder of 2 other human beings........... Well, then..... I might have to reconsider my answer now, won't I?

 

[BradyManny]

i wasnt even talking to you, this was for BradyManny

I'm sorry, but responding to some Ravens fan who registered yesterday was not high on my priority list.

Considering the gist of your post was that since I wasn't there when the two men were killed that I had no right forming any opinion on the matter, I decided not to respond. That's a complete non-starter. Naturally if we are going to restrict people to have opinions only on things they witnessed first-hand or have an expertise on, very little would get said or done, especially on the internet.

Another poster asked roughly the same question as you albeit with more coherence, so I decided to respond to that one. Feel free to peruse this thread for that response. I'm not going to attempt to debate with someone who begins a conversation by ending the possibility of any further debate with an asinine comment. Obviously, yes, I wasn't there that night. Congratulations, you win.

 

[BobMarley]

What the question should be is,

How many of the Patriots fans on this site are bandwagon hoppers? My belief after seeing some of the posts on this site, is that many Pats fans are stupid bandwagoner's.

 

[PatsFan24]

Suggs seems to be showing Brady some love lately....

The guys have talked some trash in the past, but I do think there is a mutal respect on the field.

 

[PatsFan24]

I guess you forgot the part where Ray Lewis was an accessory to the murder of two people.

:bricks:

Don't worry, a lot of people do. And people includes the media.

The world would be a better place without either of these a-holes. Suggs beat a woman; Lewis gets in fights and people end up dead. Screw them both.

Well said sir!

 

[PatsFan24]

Ok so let's get your eyewitness account of Ray Lewis killing people. Don't leave out a single detail, as your candid testimony is the supreme proof of what this man's character is and was 13 years ago...

I bet you think OJ Simpson did not kill anyone. And even if he did we should not hold that against him because it was over 15 years ago!

We all have a team and personal bias, but this is way over the top!

 

[Matt Hooper]

This again? Why not talk about football?

 

[PatsFan24]

still waiting on the proof from you...

Really??? Come on man

 

[Bmore2012]

Brady is the bigger a-hole

 

[juny]

Lewis may not have directly killed anyone, but he probably was around when it happened. Where did his white suit from the night of the murders go? Why did he settle with the families of the two victims if he had nothing to do with it? Why was he fined $250K by the league (and this is before emperor Goodell)?

I will give him benefit of the doubt that he discarded his shady friends from his youth as he has been clean for a while. But I think he got lucky with his outcome from that night.