Aware vs Generally Aware

What is the difference between Aware and Generally Aware? Is there a legal distinction?

raduray said:

What is the difference between Aware and Generally Aware? Is there a legal distinction?

Click to expand...

The same as Pregnant and Generally Pregnant. You're either pregnant or not. Aware or not.

Refers to belief without evidence.

Actually a good discussion to have. Balance of probabilities/preponderance of evidence has been talked about, and the general language used has been criticized for its patent ambiguity, but I haven't really seen much in-depth conversation on this topic.

raduray said:

What is the difference between Aware and Generally Aware? Is there a legal distinction?

Click to expand...

The sad thing is there's no objective basis for identifying either.

Whatever you want it to mean.

raduray said:

What is the difference between Aware and Generally Aware? Is there a legal distinction?

Click to expand...

Don't fall into the trap that is always set by lawyers. They focus on manipulating the language to their advantage. Famous example, "It depends on what the meaning of is is."

I prefer to live in the real world, where the laws of physics operate, and a civil society, where the laws of due process operate. My whole problem with this fiasco is that the NFL is exempt from the laws of physics or civil society. Without those, you have the law of the jungle - where life is nasty, brutish, and short.

It's a weasel word to cover his ass because he knew he had jack squat.

An interesting note on "general awareness." That standard has been repeatedly rejected by State and federal courts across the country in a wide range of cases and issues. Put simply, while attorneys repeatedly ask for that standard, it is rarely if ever used.

Most crimes and civil actions turn on proof of actual knowledge, simply because generalized awareness is too shaky a standard on which to base liability. It is simply inadequate. Never really thought of the choice of words, other than the fact that even that choice was not established by the evidence in the report.

MassPats38 said:

An interesting note on "general awareness." That standard has been repeatedly rejected by State and federal courts across the country in a wide range of cases and issues. Put simply, while attorneys repeatedly ask for that standard, it is rarely if ever used.

Most crimes and civil actions turn on proof of actual knowledge, simply because generalized awareness is too shaky a standard on which to base liability. It is simply inadequate. Never really thought of the choice of words, other than the fact that even that choice was not established by the evidence in the report.

Click to expand...

none of the language in this nonsense report is court standard for lynching, but it's league and cba standard, which is why he used it.
they paid a prosecutor to string together some nonsense and then give his opinion that somebody did something.

if somebody paid me 20m I'd probably share that same opinion.

"More probable than not generally aware." lolololol

"Something maybe happened at some point that caused something, although it might not have, too. If it did, however, we think Tom Brady might have possibly known something, perhaps, about this thing, that may or may not have actually happened."

Interesting!

That said, I'd presume employers would be allowed to use a "generally aware" standard, to cover cases in which a superior says to his underlings "I want X to be accomplished, and do whatever it takes to make it happen."

And THAT said -- is there any precedent for the NFL using it in a disciplinary case? There certainly have been team penalties that boiled down to what, in the financial industry, we used to call "failure to supervise", but I don't think that's exactly the same thing.

MassPats38 said:

An interesting note on "general awareness." That standard has been repeatedly rejected by State and federal courts across the country in a wide range of cases and issues. Put simply, while attorneys repeatedly ask for that standard, it is rarely if ever used.

Most crimes and civil actions turn on proof of actual knowledge, simply because generalized awareness is too shaky a standard on which to base liability. It is simply inadequate. Never really thought of the choice of words, other than the fact that even that choice was not established by the evidence in the report.

Click to expand...

That would be a fine question to ask in Brady's appeal:
"Mr. Goodell, can you define what "generally aware" means so we can know what my client is accused of?

I'm guessing Aware would be libel, since there is zero evidence Brady knew about deflation or ordered deflation.

"Generally aware of" could mean anything. But worse than accusing Brady, it implies there was deflation to begin with. There is zero evidence there was deflation to begin with.

Haven't seen anyone do the math yet, but it's ridiculous for Wells to say there's a 51% chance of deflation, and given that, 51% chance Brady was "generally aware of it."

Creating a chain of "more probable than not" is .51 x .51 = 26% chance there IS deflation AND Brady "was generally aware of it", which is not beyond the burden of proof in any court, civil or not.

From what I can gather the term "generally aware" means that TB may not have know that the balls were being tampered with after the refs inspection, but he was knew something was going on and it was against the rules.
From on-line legal dictionary:

Proof of general criminal intent is required for the conviction of most crimes. The intent element is usually fulfilled if the defendant was generally aware that he or she was very likely committing a crime. This means that the prosecution need not prove that the defendant was aware of all of the elements constituting the crime. For example, in a prosecution for the possession of more than a certain amount of a controlled substance, it is not necessary to prove that the defendant knew the precise quantity. Other examples of general-intent crimes are Battery, rape, Kidnapping, and False Imprisonment.

PATS16N0 said:

"More probable than not generally aware." lolololol

"Something maybe happened at some point that caused something, although it might not have, too. If it did, however, we think Tom Brady might have possibly known something, perhaps, about this thing, that may or may not have actually happened."

Click to expand...

Did you run the Wells Report thru google translate ---> Legal Wording to Standard BS?

Same difference as kind of having a knife in your back and definitely having a knife in your back or..
same diff as kind of targeted, framed and then set up and definitely being singled out for having the audacity of beating all those teams for all these years and ruining so many records and so many dreams sniff he must pay..

Pretty sure it's a made-up term that Wells invented to make Brady seem guilty of... something, even though there was zero evidence that, even if some wrongdoing had occurred--which he had no evidence of--Brady had any direct knowledge of it.

BradyFTW! said:

Pretty sure it's a made-up term that Wells invented to make Brady seem guilty of... something, even though there was zero evidence that, even if some wrongdoing had occurred--which he had no evidence of--Brady had any direct knowledge of it.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Ted Wells couldn't have use the term "aware" or "fully aware," because there isn't a shred of evidence to do so.

He was forced to use the term "generally aware" because that's all that was left.

MassPats38 said:

An interesting note on "general awareness." That standard has been repeatedly rejected by State and federal courts across the country in a wide range of cases and issues. Put simply, while attorneys repeatedly ask for that standard, it is rarely if ever used.

Most crimes and civil actions turn on proof of actual knowledge, simply because generalized awareness is too shaky a standard on which to base liability. It is simply inadequate. Never really thought of the choice of words, other than the fact that even that choice was not established by the evidence in the report.

Click to expand...

This is excellent, except that you know what the league would say--we never said this stands to the same standards used in a court of law.

I think this is one of the most galling aspects of this case. To have the legacy of an all-time great player possibly permanently undermined by some vague "Some of us think that he probably had sufficient reason to suspect that something might be going on with the ball attendants, though we are only somewhat confident that they were doing something in the first place" feels akin to being legally penalized. And if one can make a demonstrable case of damages done, then it seems to me that he has a right to defend himself in a civil case, and to have the standards of those cases reached--which with the evidence that is out there now, would not be sufficient to show "awareness."