OT: Josh Brown

[bbobbo]

I've heard reports that all this new information about Brown's case comes from Brown's own personal journals he wrote while in therapy. If that is true, this is a terrible president to set!!

I am in no way defending Brown or what he did, he is a scumbag, and nobody should ever harm a woman or a child.

BUT, if Brown wrote these journals as part of his therapy and now they are being used to against him, that is horribly WRONG! Much like the confessional, what goes on between you and your Doctor should be private and unusable in court, and yes, even the court of public opinion!

Once again, the NFL has so screwed up this case (and all the others) and will again, damage most the one person who is the victim!

First off, I would not impose any punishment until a criminal case is finished, this way you know the entire story (and can't claim that you didn't).

Secondly, I would make the Domestic Abuse policy read that any player, coach, owner, etc suspended under the Domestic Abuse Policy will have his pay given directly to the victim. I would also mandate that the club MUST keep and pay the suspended player on the payroll, for the length of his suspension.

The way the NFL does it now, the victim, not only gets abused, then she faces the choice of reporting the abuse and almost certainly lose her financial support, so many stay silent and take it. Even after they report the abuse to the authorities, cooperating in any NFL investigation is counterproductive for the victim, because again, the end result will be loss of financial support for the victim and her children!

The NFL needs to rethink this whole personal conduct policy and it really needs to get rid of the buffoon running the league.

Anytime there is domestic or child abuse involved (ongoing), the therapist is required by law to report it. I don't know what happened in this case but journals and therapy were mentioned. If he did report what has been reported to his therapist and the therapist did not report it, they will lose their license at the very least.

from the original SNY story, the specific information regarding abuse came from emails brown sent to his wife molly, a letter he wrote to friends, and journal entries that brown wrote as a part of couples counseling sessions. all of this information was turned over by molly brown to the kings county sheriff's office as part of their investigation into his arrest for a domestic violence assault.

SNY: Josh Brown admitted to physically and emotionally abusing his wife

.

 

[Deus Irae]

The owners do not want anything to do with handling domestic violence - they pay Goodell to handle this stuff and not screw it up. He has - and the media is now after them like a rabid dog. Mara is about to have a rectal exam.

"We leave criminal matters to the appropriate authorities"

Problem solved. Tagliabue, who, as a lawyer, should have known that, instead decided to have the NFL dip its toe into the water albeit only minimally. That was the beginning of the end of common sense in this area. Then, because Goodell's a crusader, and a fool, the NFL got even more deeply into the criminal justice business, with predictable (and predicted) results.

 

[bormio]

"We leave criminal matters to the appropriate authorities"

Problem solved. Tagliabue, who, as a lawyer, should have known that, instead decided to have the NFL dip its toe into the water albeit only minimally. That was the beginning of the end of common sense in this area. Then, because Goodell's a crusader, and a fool, the NFL got even more deeply into the criminal justice business, with predictable (and predicted) results.

That was the way is used to be - but simply in today's world is not tenable. The firestorm that is now erupting with each of these cases means the league and teams have to deal with it and mete out "punishment" prior to the criminal process playing out. Also many of these cases do not result in prosecution, but everyone is still demanding the league to "do something".

 

[Deus Irae]

That was the way is used to be - but simply in today's world is not tenable.

People frequently say things like this. It's almost never true.

 

[Ring 6]

"We leave criminal matters to the appropriate authorities"

Problem solved. Tagliabue, who, as a lawyer, should have known that, instead decided to have the NFL dip its toe into the water albeit only minimally. That was the beginning of the end of common sense in this area. Then, because Goodell's a crusader, and a fool, the NFL got even more deeply into the criminal justice business, with predictable (and predicted) results.

Part of the problem is the NFL is a lightning rod.
Remember the Vick outrage. Women's groups were literally picketing the league saying they will boycott the league and its sponsors if it allows women beaters to play.

They have to do something.
If you are saying suspend only those cuncicted it opens another door. Letting Greg hardy who was never convicted (completely) play without any discipline would have been a pr nightmare and cost the league fans and money.

There really isn't an easy answer other than anything but the way they are handling it would be better

 

[bormio]

Heck, we live in a world where if someone SAYS something deemed a bit offensive, there are those clamoring to have them ostracized, lose their job, drawn and quartered etc.

 

[Deus Irae]

Part of the problem is the NFL is a lightning rod.
Remember the Vick outrage. Women's groups were literally picketing the league saying they will boycott the league and its sponsors if it allows women beaters to play.

Idiots protest everything. Giving in almost inevitably makes things worse rather than better.

They have to do something.

No, they don't. Deciding that they had to do "something" is what got them into this position in the first place.

If you are saying suspend only those cuncicted it opens another door. Letting Greg hardy who was never convicted (completely) play without any discipline would have been a pr nightmare and cost the league fans and money.

I'm saying that you let the law handle the law, and you state clearly and forcefully that your job as a league is to police the league related issues only. You leave decisions about off-the-field type stuff to the individual teams. If the Bengals want to field a squad comprised solely of felons, or the Bengals want to field a squad composed solely of choirboys, or the Bengals want to field a squad that falls somewhere in between, that's for them to decide.

 

[bormio]

Idiots protest everything. Giving in almost inevitably makes things worse rather than better.



No, they don't. Deciding that they had to do "something" is what got them into this position in the first place.



I'm saying that you let the law handle the law, and you state clearly and forcefully that your job as a league is to police the league related issues only. You leave decisions about off-the-field type stuff to the individual teams. If the Bengals want to field a squad comprised solely of felons, or the Bengals want to field a squad composed solely of choirboys, or the Bengals want to field a squad that falls somewhere in between, that's for them to decide.

And when sponsors get pressured and drop the NFL (do not think it cannot happen) you think the NFL is going to stick to that stance. I really think your approach is makes sense - but in a world of the internet and social media is harder to stay with than you think. It is crazy - college commissions are trying to adjudicate cases of rape and sexual assault - it is nuts.

 

[Deus Irae]

And when sponsors get pressured and drop the NFL (do not think it cannot happen) you think the NFL is going to stick to that stance. I really think your approach is makes sense - but in a world of the internet and social media is harder to stay with than you think. It is crazy - college commissions are trying to adjudicate cases of rape and sexual assault - it is nuts.

The NFL can replace lost sponsors more easily that just about any company on the planet. Lost in all this is this little reality:

Two recommended domestic violence charges against Giants kicker Josh Brown were declined by a prosecuting attorney, according to a document obtained by NJ Advance Media which cites "non-evidentiary reasons."

The King County (Wash.) Prosecuting Attorney's Office opted not to file two charges of fourth-degree domestic violence against Brown. The charges were recommended by Det. Robin L. Ostrum of the King County Sheriff Department on Sept. 14 of this year after she closed her investigation, according to police documents obtained by NJ Advance Media.

According to the prosecutor's memorandum explaining the decision to decline the charges, which is dated Oct. 20, Ostrum referred the charges "anticipating decline of criminal charges rather than a probable cause statement to support charging," according to senior deputy David L. Ryan, who agreed with that assessment, saying Brown's assertion that he accidentally grabbed his wife's wrist during a 2015 altercation cannot be disproven without Brown's wife cooperating with authorities. The memo, and multiple police documents obtained by NJ Advance Media, have stated Brown's wife has been hesitant to cooperate with investigators.

Recommended domestic violence charges against Giants' Josh Brown were declined

 

[BradyFTW!]

What a weird issue to make a stand over, especially just 2 weeks after speaking out about how OBJ is a distraction. They've condemned Beckham far more forcefully than they've condemned Brown, and that's so ****ed up I'm not sure I can wrap my head around it.

Let the record show that the Giants think hitting a kicking net is a bigger issue than habitually beating your wife.

 

[bormio]

These cases are often not prosecuted due to the victim not cooperating. Women's groups (and others) do not care. They still expect there to be consequences - i.e. the Hardy situation.

 

[Deus Irae]

Let the record show that the Giants think hitting a kicking net is a bigger issue than habitually beating your wife.

That's the thing. In the context of this being a football league, they're absolutely right.

 

[Froob]

NFLPA has to get into the next CBA that if you aren't charged with a crime, you can't be punished. Boom. No more controversies. Teams can sit players if they choose to. Make stated punishments for getting charged with crimes. Leave very little to interpretation.

 

[BradyFTW!]

That's the thing. In the context of this being a football league, they're absolutely right.

In the context of being a bunch of disingenuous losers who spent the last 2 years breathlessly insisting that they take this stuff seriously and that's super important to them... not so much. Once John Mara demanded that everyone hear his opinion on how against domestic violence he was and how there would never be any place for it in his organization, he lost the ability to draw that line.

FWIW, I do agree that this is a defensible position if it's purely an argument of the NFL's jurisdiction. In other words: hitting a kicking net on the field falls within the realm of what we've accepted a role in disciplining; beating your wife, however deplorable, does not. We are not the proper authority to police that." But the moment the NFL assumed role in policing off-field conduct, the ability to credibly make that argument vanished.

All along I've thought the NFL was dumb to assume the job of dishing out punishments for off-field conduct. I don't even think they should test players for recreational drugs. If there was ever a consistent moral line that they can and should have reasonably adhered to, it's "our job is to police what happens on the field. It's law enforcement's job to police what happens off the field. We trust the legal system to do its job, and we're certainly not arrogant enough to think that we even can do that job."

 

[XLIX]

That was the way is used to be - but simply in today's world is not tenable. The firestorm that is now erupting with each of these cases means the league and teams have to deal with it and mete out "punishment" prior to the criminal process playing out. Also many of these cases do not result in prosecution, but everyone is still demanding the league to "do something".

Agreed. It's just not realistic to think that the public will accept a philosophy that the league doesn't punish players for transgressions like domestic violence. The media and public would be outraged.

 

[jah]

How did this turn into a bunch of complaining about women?

 

[XLIX]

The NFL can replace lost sponsors more easily that just about any company on the planet.

That's a ridiculously short sighted statement. Yes, they can replace sponsors but if the overall demand from companies to be an NFL sponsor drops, the NFL's revenue will drop.

Fewer sponsors fighting for those coveted "official XYZ of the NFL" label means less $$ for the league.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Part of the problem is the NFL is a lightning rod.
Remember the Vick outrage. Women's groups were literally picketing the league saying they will boycott the league and its sponsors if it allows women beaters to play.

They have to do something.
If you are saying suspend only those cuncicted it opens another door. Letting Greg hardy who was never convicted (completely) play without any discipline would have been a pr nightmare and cost the league fans and money.

There really isn't an easy answer other than anything but the way they are handling it would be better

Sure, and a bunch of pissed off rednecks threatened to boycott the NFL for failing to ban Kaepernick. When would-be protesters make unreasonable demands, sometimes the best option is to just let them protest since you can't give in to their demands without opening up a huge can of worms that will just create even bigger problems for you.

 

[Deus Irae]

In the context of being a bunch of disingenuous losers who spent the last 2 years breathlessly insisting that they take this stuff seriously and that's super important to them... not so much. Once John Mara demanded that everyone hear his opinion on how against domestic violence he was and how there would never be any place for it in his organization, he lost the ability to draw that line.

FWIW, I do agree that this is a defensible position if it's purely an argument of the NFL's jurisdiction. In other words: hitting a kicking net on the field falls within the realm of what we've accepted a role in disciplining; beating your wife, however deplorable, does not. We are not the proper authority to police that." But the moment the NFL assumed role in policing off-field conduct, the ability to credibly make that argument vanished.

All along I've thought the NFL was dumb to assume the job of dishing out punishments for off-field conduct. I don't even think they should test players for recreational drugs. If there was ever a consistent moral line that they can and should have reasonably adhered to, it's "our job is to police what happens on the field. It's law enforcement's job to police what happens off the field. We trust the legal system to do its job, and we're certainly not arrogant enough to think that we even can do that job."

Nailed it, although I'd say that they could, and should, get back to just policing the league, and I'd put this forth as yet another shining example of just why that is.

 

[IcyPatriot]

...............