Incognito suspended indefinitely by Dolphins

[Deus Irae]

Yes, being against sexual molestation is weak position, you're such a tough guy. Oooh.

That's not the argument I was referrring to, as you must surely know. You've now accused me of being down with racism and down with molestation, with no evidence for either. You should be banned from this thread for that.

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

Perhaps, but in practice if you pay off the victim, a lot of criminal problems can go away. Think Kobe Bryant's rape case. Or, for a different kind of Florida issue, think Donte' Stallworth's vehicular homicide.

Stallworth was charged and pleaded guilty so I don't see what your talking about. And the family still sued him afterward in which he settled. It makes no sense to not have charges because if the criminal conviction were upheld than the civil case would be much stronger. She probably has no say in the charges. They charges weren't dropped they simply didn't exist. The police are not all a bunch of incompetent corrupt morons. If they can put a criminal away they will try. In this case they couldn't even find enough evidence for a charge. We don't know what happened but a Julian Edelman case looks just as likely if not more so than any other version.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Incognito held Oline meetings at strip club | National Football Post

See? Nobody's all bad!

 

[condon84]

107 pages? Do you guys have jobs? SMH.

 

[NYCPatsFan]

...


which leads to:

"...We think the fake tough guy, the ex-con turned rhetoric spewer was more courageous than the educated pacifist who won our liberation standing in the streets, absorbing repeated ass-whippings, jail and a white assassin's bullet. We fell for the okeydoke."

Which adds up to his belief that the black players should choose Martin over Incognito because of race.

Whitlock is a racist.

Maybe I need to read the whole article but by reading what you quoted (highlighted above), I find your conclusion a bit stretched.

Here is what I took from that quote: Whitlock does not seem to care about the skin of such fake tough guys - they can be black, white, brown, yellow, red or rainbow - and yet the black folks prefer that 'courage' of a fake tough guy over the pacificsm of an educated black guy.

Am I missing something?

 

[Fencer]

I can tell you that it absolutely works like this. Murder is a different crime and paying a witness is not the same thing as compensating the live victim of a sex crime. Many, many people would rather, at the end of the day, get some money rather than go through the agony of a trial (including intense questioning, either in a deposition or on the witness stand about your sex life, what exactly this perpetrator did to you, etc. all of which can be fair game in such circumtances). By the same token, perpetrators, particularly if money is no object (or not much of one) would much rather pay a chunk of change than go through the embarassment (and loss of reputation) on the other side. Lawyers for both these folks, if they are doing their job right and know their respective client, will tell them so.

I don't know the specifics of the case, but as an attorney looking in from the outside, I can tell you if there is a confidentiality agreement and the police dropped it, that means Mr. Incognito paid some amount (who knows how much - depends on the victim and what actually happened) to impersonate his name.

Did you really mean the bolded word? If so, what's its legal meaning??

 

[Fencer]

Stallworth was charged and pleaded guilty so I don't see what your talking about. And the family still sued him afterward in which he settled. It makes no sense to not have charges because if the criminal conviction were upheld than the civil case would be much stronger. She probably has no say in the charges. They charges weren't dropped they simply didn't exist. The police are not all a bunch of incompetent corrupt morons. If they can put a criminal away they will try. In this case they couldn't even find enough evidence for a charge. We don't know what happened but a Julian Edelman case looks just as likely if not more so than any other version.

Stallworth got a remarkably light sentence for having killed somebody while driving drunk.

 

[PatsDeb]

Did you really mean the bolded word? If so, what's its legal meaning??

I suppose it was a bad joke, but what I meant was he paid to be incognito (i.e. hidden or unrecognized) in a pending criminal investigation and probably the threat of a big fat civil lawsuit.

 

[BSR]

Maybe I need to read the whole article but by reading what you quoted (highlighted above), I find your conclusion a bit stretched.

Here is what I took from that quote: Whitlock does not seem to care about the skin of such fake tough guys - they can be black, white, brown, yellow, red or rainbow - and yet the black folks prefer that 'courage' of a fake tough guy over the pacificsm of an educated black guy.

Am I missing something?

I did read the whole article and I don't know what Andy is talking about. I am pretty sure that Whitlock is saying that the Dolphins players should back Martin because he is a better person with nothing to do about him being black. It's not so much of a "stretch" as it is a total misread of the article.

 

[MassPats38]

I can tell you that it absolutely works like this. Murder is a different crime and paying a witness is not the same thing as compensating the live victim of a sex crime. Many, many people would rather, at the end of the day, get some money rather than go through the agony of a trial (including intense questioning, either in a deposition or on the witness stand about your sex life, what exactly this perpetrator did to you, etc. all of which can be fair game in such circumtances). By the same token, perpetrators, particularly if money is no object (or not much of one) would much rather pay a chunk of change than go through the embarassment (and loss of reputation) on the other side. Lawyers for both these folks, if they are doing their job right and know their respective client, will tell them so.

I don't know the specifics of the case, but as an attorney looking in from the outside, I can tell you if there is a confidentiality agreement and the police dropped it, that means Mr. Incognito paid some amount (who knows how much - depends on the victim and what actually happened) to impersonate his name.

I do agree with victim interests in sex cases, and a reluctance to testify. And I do agree as to the victim motivation for the agreement, although I expect there may be more reasons than an admission of guilty to explain the necessity of the agreement. Similarly, the existence of such an agreement, if proven, would suggest details embarrassing to Incognito.

With that said, and with reference to your discussion directed to the post to which you responded, I am not sure what your experience is (50 states and the feds do things differently, so you may have a different experience) once a criminal complaint is filed with the police, as appears to be the case here. I have not seen a confidentiality agreement kill a criminal prosecution (to include prosecutions of sex offenses - my experience is federal) once that complaint is filed with authorities. What that Florida attorney states in the link I provided is consistent with the federal criminal approach - the victim's reluctance to testify will be weighed by the prosecutor in determining whether to prosecute or not prosecute (I know some States permit a victim of crime greater authority in determinations as to whether to press forward as that decision to press charges is an essential component of the charge). In this case, the victim appears to be the complainant, not a guardian or third party to the victim. If the prosecutor decides to go forward under a system approximating the federal system, subpoena authority will make up the victim's mind if that person is essential to the case (they will testify on pain of contempt if incapable of asserting a testimonial privilege). I have seen that first hand in practice. Interests of justice at the system level preempt individual concerns.

In the federal system, victims' rights permit victim statements at material portions of criminal prosecutions (bond hearings and sentencing). They provide for restitution awards. They do not take the case from the prosecutor, and thereby derail prosecutions. I suspect, in a State system in which a victim's concurrence in a prosecution is essential to the State's decision, that contracts to purchase the victim's silence are inevitable (I still think Big Ben may have availed himself of such an arrangement to kill that case, given the PO'd prosecutor and his public address at the end of the case). If Florida has such a system, that may be the case here. If not, then the Florida subpoena would force the testimony as a matter of criminal procedure if there ultimately was a case to prosecute.

 

[Zeus]

I think Whitlock's piece has been badly mischaracterized here. He is being scathingly critical of the portion of black culture that embraces the notion that being "criminal, savage, uneducated and irresponsible" is the very essence of American blackness.

It's a fact that Incognito has been in trouble everywhere he as played. (I mean who gets thrown out of Nebraska anyway?). Martin has never caused a bit of trouble anywhere. It's pretty clear to me that Whitlock's dismay at the support of Incognito over Martin has nothing to do with the color of their skin but but with how these two men have comported themselves.

I hope that Incognito gets the help he needs. His anger issues are problematic even by NFL standards, and that's saying something. If indeed his NFL career is over, he is ill-suited to function elsewhere as a productive member of society. I'm not trying to judge or condemn, but let's face it - the guy needs professional help.

Martin's future is uncertain as well. Whether he will be welcomed into an NFL locker room after he "broke the code" remains to be seen. He's been criticized here for being soft although none of us knows the totality of what he experienced. It may well have been the accumulation of things over a long period of time that caused him to flee. Or there maybe other contributing factors. We'll probably never know for sure.

The curtain has been pulled back NFL locker rooms (or at least the one in Miami) as being not a whole lot more mature than what I remember from high school. Hey, you don't really fit in, so we're going to gang rape your sister in the hopes of impregnating her or giving her a deadly venereal disease and if you don't see the obvious humor here, it's because you are a self-entitled creep who went to a high class school, is over educated and thinks he is better than we are. Yeah, that's pretty funny stuff ...

Character matters. How you treat people matters. I don't see that being mentioned anywhere. Why is all the macho bull**** posturing more important than treating others with respect?

To make matter even worse, the ham-handed Inspector Goodell is now on the case and in short order will make an even bigger hash out of this sorry mess. However this turns out, it's hard to imagine that it will not be another stain on the game that is increasingly under siege. That's a shame.

Flame on ...

 

[PatsDeb]

I do agree with victim interests in sex cases, and a reluctance to testify. And I do agree as to the victim motivation for the agreement, although I expect there may be more reasons than an admission of guilty to explain the necessity of the agreement. Similarly, the existence of such an agreement, if proven, would suggest details embarrassing to Incognito.

With that said, and with reference to your discussion directed to the post to which you responded, I am not sure what your experience is (50 states and the feds do things differently, so you may have a different experience) once a criminal complaint is filed with the police, as appears to be the case here. I have not seen a confidentiality agreement kill a criminal prosecution (to include prosecutions of sex offenses - my experience is federal) once that complaint is filed with authorities. What that Florida attorney states in the link I provided is consistent with the federal criminal approach - the victim's reluctance to testify will be weighed by the prosecutor in determining whether to prosecute or not prosecute (I know some States permit a victim of crime greater authority in determinations as to whether to press forward as that decision to press charges is an essential component of the charge). In this case, the victim appears to be the complainant, not a guardian or third party to the victim. If the prosecutor decides to go forward under a system approximating the federal system, subpoena authority will make up the victim's mind if that person is essential to the case (they will testify on pain of contempt if incapable of asserting a testimonial privilege). I have seen that first hand in practice. Interests of justice at the system level preempt individual concerns.

In the federal system, victims' rights permit victim statements at material portions of criminal prosecutions (bond hearings and sentencing). They provide for restitution awards. They do not take the case from the prosecutor, and thereby derail prosecutions. I suspect, in a State system in which a victim's concurrence in a prosecution is essential to the State's decision, that contracts to purchase the victim's silence are inevitable (I still think Big Ben may have availed himself of such an arrangement to kill that case, given the PO'd prosecutor and his public address at the end of the case). If Florida has such a system, that may be the case here. If not, then the Florida subpoena would force the testimony as a matter of criminal procedure if there ultimately was a case to prosecute.

I don't disagree with anything you say. However, in my experience local police departments and prosecutors (who are generally the ones who handle these matters) are overworked and underpaid, and if the parties to such an investigation as this one approach them (through lawyers, of course, because people with no means do not handle things this way) and say, we're going to enter a civil settlement, but as part of that the criminal investigation has to go away, they will more than likely oblige. Rape/sexual assault cases are notoriously hard to prove (because of the "he said, she said" aspects, and other issues), and if the victim is saying, I'd rather take this settlement than have to go through a trial, they have justification to drop the investigation.

PS - I also work with the FBI on occassion, in my line of work, and although the crimes I deal with are bankruptcy/money crimes (and not violent crimes against individuals), you'd be surprised how fast the feds will drop something if $$ is paid in a civil context to settle things.

 

[Tunescribe]

See? Nobody's all bad!

A master multi-tasker.

 

[Deus Irae]

See? Nobody's all bad!

Other than the "Strip clubs are bad, because God" position, which is valid but pretty clearly not the only rallying cry here, I'm trying to figure out why people have an issue with this.

 

[MassPats38]

I don't disagree with anything you say. However, in my experience local police departments and prosecutors (who are generally the ones who handle these matters) are overworked and underpaid, and if the parties to such an investigation as this one approach them (through lawyers, of course, because people with no means do not handle things this way) and say, we're going to enter a civil settlement, but as part of that the criminal investigation has to go away, they will more than likely oblige. Rape/sexual assault cases are notoriously hard to prove (because of the "he said, she said" aspects, and other issues), and if the victim is saying, I'd rather take this settlement than have to go through a trial, they have justification to drop the investigation.

PS - I also work with the FBI on occassion, in my line of work, and although the crimes I deal with are bankruptcy/money crimes (and not violent crimes against individuals), you'd be surprised how fast the feds will drop something if $$ is paid in a civil context to settle things.

No disagreement here as to what you are saying either. I deal with HSI, FBI, DEA and a few others on the border, and agree that compensation can play into the decision to approach the U.S. Attorneys with cases (we deal with a heavy criminal caseload here, so I suspect alternative resolutions are not typically considered after a charging document is filed - civil settlements have played into criminal sentences in my experience). Our discussion here is more attributable to the difference between cold theory and practice, what can be done in law as opposed to what can be done through the exercise of prosecutorial or agency discretion.

 

[Jackson 2]

I think Whitlock's piece has been badly mischaracterized here. He is being scathingly critical of the portion of black culture that embraces the notion that being "criminal, savage, uneducated and irresponsible" is the very essence of American blackness.

It's a fact that Incognito has been in trouble everywhere he as played. (I mean who gets thrown out of Nebraska anyway?). Martin has never caused a bit of trouble anywhere. It's pretty clear to me that Whitlock's dismay at the support of Incognito over Martin has nothing to do with the color of their skin but but with how these two men have comported themselves.

I hope that Incognito gets the help he needs. His anger issues are problematic even by NFL standards, and that's saying something. If indeed his NFL career is over, he is ill-suited to function elsewhere as a productive member of society. I'm not trying to judge or condemn, but let's face it - the guy needs professional help.

Martin's future is uncertain as well. Whether he will be welcome into an NFL locker room after he "broke the code" remains to be seen. He's been criticized here for being soft although none of us knows the totality of what he experienced. It may well have been the accumulation of things over a long period of time that caused him to flee. Or there maybe other contributing factors. We'll probably never know for sure.

The curtain has been pulled back NFL locker rooms (or at least the one in Miami) as being not a whole lot more mature than what I remember from high school. Hey, you don't really fit in, so we're going to gang rape your sister in the hopes of impregnating her or giving her a deadly venereal disease and if you don't see the obvious humor here, it's because you are a self-entitled creep who went to a high class school, is over educated and thinks he is better than we are. Yeah, that's pretty funny stuff ...

Character matters. How you treat people matters. I don't see that being mentioned anywhere. Why is all the macho bull**** posturing more important than treating others with respect?

To make matter even worse, the ham-handed Inspector Goodell is now on the case and in short order will make a bigger hash out of this sorry mess. However this turns out, it's hard to imagine that it will not be another stain on the game that is increasingly under siege. That's a shame.

Flame on ...

A voice of reason and rational thinking on a board vacant of the same in this thread. Well-done, Zeus. Undoubtedly, you will be thought of as "soft", "weak", a "*******" by lots of the usual internet tough guys around here. What a sorry lot...

 

[Fencer]

It's a cliche' that serious, hardworking students at inner-city schools are ostracized and harassed for not "acting black", to an extent that significantly inhibits students from doing exactly what one would advise them to do to raise their station in life. That ties into what Whitlock was writing about.

If Whitlock and the cliche' are wrong, it's because they overstate the frequency of the phenomenon; but I'm guessing they are correct. It is certain that the phenomenon exists.

 

[fnordcircle]

107 pages? Do you guys have jobs? SMH.

What job do you have where you can't make 5-10 internet posts in a discussion after you get done with work?

 

[Jackson 2]

What job do you have where you can't make 5-10 internet posts in a discussion after you get done with work?

Not sure the 5-10 post people are those Condon is referring to...just a guess...

 

[PP2]

Other than the "Strip clubs are bad, because God" position, which is valid but pretty clearly not the only rallying cry here, I'm trying to figure out why people have an issue with this.

I'm afraid that if they get rid of Incognitio, the linemen will stop meeting at the strip clubs and that would allow that franchise to develop consistency at quarterback position. That then, may pose a serious threat to our reign of the AFC East.