This was in my very first post:
I then went on to say that without due process the evidence presented selectively by the NFL is largely meaningless in determining guilt in response to this:
My entire argument from the get go was that the whole point of due process in our legal system is that verdicts are not reliable in any way without it. A poster disagreed and chose to link the players not having due process with them being guilty. You chose to jump in and make an argument out of complete ignorance and now that you've likely realized your mistake you are going to stick with it out of stubbornness.
If you took the time to actually read and absorb what other posters say it would go along in helping you avoid embarrassing exchanges like this in the future.
I know what you wrote. It was crap.
1.) "Due Process" is not a set thing, and the requirements for satisfying the notions of "Due Process" are not static and/or identical. This is why I asked you for some level of specificity. I was hoping that you'd smarten up enough to figure that out.
2.) Constitutional "Due Process" is not at play here, despite you bringing it up. It's completely inapplicable. The notion of Constitutional Due Process was that the individual needed to be protected from sham charges, mock trials and the like done by the power of the government, and was brought forward in modified form from the Magna Carta. That's moot here, because the discipline being laid out is the result of a contractual agreement between two clearly knowing and consenting parties, and not the result of an overwhelming government wrongly imposing itself and railroading a single citizen.
3.) The league did an investigation. It generated evidence. It asked the players to give their side of the story and defend themselves. The players refused to do so. The league acted. In other words, this was essentially a judgement by default (if you wish to think civilly), or a refusal to mount a defense (if you wish to think criminally). In other words, any lack of defense was the direct result of the actions of the defendants.
Each of the four players suspended for participating in the New Orleans Saints' bounty scandal was invited to meet with NFL officials to defend themselves, with counsel present, before punishments were determined.
All four declined.
Players suspended in bounty probe declined NFL meeting
4.) The arbitrator has ruled that Goodell does, indeed, have jurisdiction of this case
because of the CBA.
5.) Players (i.e. Vilma) took this to the arbitrator,
per the CBA, meaning they did, in fact, have recourse. You've chosen to equate losing in front of the designated ruling body with not having legal recourse. That's asinine.
In other words, and to make the point once again, since you can't seem to fathom the obvious on this topic:
The notion of due process doesn't apply here, because this is a contest between consenting, relatively equal parties and not a contest between an overwhelming power and a lone citizen. If, however, we did want to demand a fair level of due process nonetheless, those levels were met to the level of many current governmental proceedings which do require the satisfaction of due process requirements. The problem here is that the NFLPA was stupid enough to allow the NFL to remain as judge, jury and executioner for on-the-field discipline instead of setting up an outside party as the arbiter.
So, unless you want to make the claim that the current CBA is not legally valid and go about arguing that in front of the courts, you've got nothing except being ridiculously wrong when posting
Basically you and everyone else who rants constantly about Goodell being power mad are now saying that Goodell's accusations are automatically believable only because those who he accuses have zero legal recourse. Pretty bizarre logic.
