Aware vs Generally Aware

Patsfanin Philly said:

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?

Click to expand...

yeah at that point the NFL lawyers will whisper into Goodells ear, "WE'RE ****ED"

Goodell then would pull the " I have no knowledge of such Wells report exsists"

raduray said:

What is the difference between Aware and Generally Aware?

Click to expand...

Six beers.

goheels22002 said:

Six beers.

Click to expand...

yeah and being the Commish with a predetermined outcome to an independent investigation on PSI in footballs to fight for the "Integrity of the Game"

I hope a federal judge not only rips this report apart but also mention that Wells acted in bad faith moving the goalposts in the orthography territory to set a guilty tone without actually stating this and being responsible for an unproven accusation.

This is garbage language and it should account for a defamation process. I'm not aware of how the american law treat this, but here where I live if you say someone probably did something, you better have proof because this accounts as a accusation.

A fair judge should be able to identify that and expose NFL's intentions in this case, if they are going to do that? I don't think so, unless is a Patriot fan judging this case.

We don't want every reporter who says something critical going to jail in the US. Such a system would require some truth commission to judge. It does not take much imagination to see how such a group could be come politically controlled and used as a weapon.

However, this isn't somebody said something not nice. The NFL is not a critical reporter. I guess I would say, if defamation doesn't apply here, then when would it ever apply?

PatSunday said:

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.

Click to expand...

Ahh. And so that's why Brady was suspended for 4 games (25% of season)! Who said Goodell operated without logic.

The 32 owners are aware that Roger Goodell is a simpleton.

However being aware cannot be proven as some of them are idiots themselves - are they capable of aware?

So 32 owners are generally aware that Goodell is a simpleton ...

generally due to lack of behind the scenes evidence - and mental capacity.

RunAmok said:

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.

Click to expand...

In your example the prosecution must have physical evidence, i.e. possession of a controlled substance, which would be presented to the court as physically proof of a crime.

In this case the evidence of a crime was as nebulous as the evidence upon which the conviction is based. Thus the Wells report should be stated as follows.

IT IS MORE PROBABLE THEN NOT THAT THE PATRIOTS FOOTBALLS WERE INFLATED TO LESS THEN 12.5 PSI IN THE FIRST HALF OF AFC GAME. IN HAS BEEN FURTHER PRESUMED THAT TOM BRADY WAS MORE PROBABLY THAN NOT GENERALLY AWARE OF THAT THIS CONDITION.

I think the terms just nonsense meant to sound legal. He didn't want to say "my gut tells me Brady knows" because it would sound amateurish, and like he's just guessing. Which of course, he is.

Bobsyouruncle said:

We don't want every reporter who says something critical going to jail in the US. Such a system would require some truth commission to judge. It does not take much imagination to see how such a group could be come politically controlled and used as a weapon.

However, this isn't somebody said something not nice. The NFL is not a critical reporter. I guess I would say, if defamation doesn't apply here, then when would it ever apply?

Click to expand...

One fairly clear cut example would be if I decided to accuse you of sexually molesting a child through avenues such as attempting to bring forth criminal charges, attempting to sue you for said act in a court of law, and/or choosing to write a book that was sold nationally claiming that the act took place when it clearly did not. If you want to get even more clear cut, pretend you are a high ranking politician running for office whose reputation would be destroyed by such allegations.

That would be a malicious act which would occur without any merit, but even then there's still some gray area as to what would be considered "proof," whether or not my negative intent was substantial enough to satisfy the standard, any interpretation from ruling parties, and ultimately what the truth was.

If it were half as easy to sue someone for defamation as has been suggested on this forum, we'd see multi-million dollar lawsuits every week for some of the stuff that's reported in the tabloids when checking out at the grocery store. How many times have you seen stuff about Obama's crack addiction, Hillary's abortions from 2o years ago, or the "fact" that Mark Wahlberg has now cheated on his wife for the 15th time?

Rawky77 said:

Thus the Wells report should be stated as follows.

IT IS MORE PROBABLE THEN NOT THAT THE PATRIOTS FOOTBALLS WERE INFLATED TO LESS THEN 12.5 PSI IN THE FIRST HALF OF AFC GAME. IN HAS BEEN FURTHER PRESUMED THAT TOM BRADY WAS MORE PROBABLY THAN NOT GENERALLY AWARE OF THAT THIS CONDITION.

Click to expand...

I think your response is dead on, Rawky77.

Unfortunately, the result would have likely been much of the same. The media and opposing fanbases would have simply read your last sentence and we'd be in the same boat. It would certainly be more appropriate of a statement though, that's for sure.

One thing that's been lost in all this mess is: what exactly did they find from the game that occurred on 1-18-15, aside from opportunity when McNally went in the restroom? We've seen their damning text messages that occurred from May and November, but what the hell does that prove for the AFCCG? You'd think their investigation would be limited solely on the events that happened in the AFCCG, unless they were deemed significant enough to warrant further investigation. I suppose Wells decided to include that because he simply couldn't find anything else about the AFCCG and already had his mind made up.