Antonio Brown

NYCPATS4LIFE said:

Again he will never see the exempt list! It would open up for women to come out and accuse football players out of nowhere . It’s like you’re guilty and that’s that even in a civil suit. CBA around the corner as well.

Click to expand...

No doubt the NFL is aware that suspending him based upon an accusation not made to authorities would expose their players to enormous blackmail risk.
But every time AB opens his mouth he distances himself from that being the reason

NYCPATS4LIFE said:

Goodell is smoking . This is civil stuff here. What makes you think he will be put brown on the exempt list? This is all PR noise.

Click to expand...

He’s no longer on a team so this going to be more like the Kaepernick situation, no team will sign him until the NFL clears him to play again, and that could be forever. And the analogy to Kaepernick is obviously not exact, but it is that every team knows the league doesn’t want them to sign him, so they won’t go down that road. In other words the NFL doesn’t have to put him on the exempt list, he has effectively done that himself.

lancerman said:

He told her friend to dig up dirt on her. That's a threat. He has no jurisdiction or legal right over her life to order people to find information about her or to snoop around her personal life. Threat is a word. There is a legal standard for unlawful threats. Something can be a threatening and reach the thresholds of being unlawful. That is the grey area.

Criminal law requires higher thresholds to enact a process that takes away someones liberty (as it should). That doesn't mean someone can't do something that meets the spirit of certain words like threat or harrassment but is vague enough or obscured enough to not be legally actionable.

Also most people on facebook when they get in a dispute with someone aren't starting a group chat with their buddies and the person they have an issue with to berate them and talk about digging up dirt and asking around about them

Click to expand...

Everyone has their interpretations of what a threat is. That’s your opinion and you have right to it. To me it’s not a threat. Let’s see what the nfl does in its investigation. I think teams will wait until the nfl is done investigating. I don’t think it will take long .

NYCPATS4LIFE said:

Again he will never see the exempt list! It would open up for women to come out and accuse football players out of nowhere . It’s like you’re guilty and that’s that even in a civil suit. CBA around the corner as well.

Click to expand...

No it wouldn't. The NFL is going to argue, "we were conducting an invesitigation while a civil litigation was playing out, we explicitely instructed Brown to not contact these women, he did in a manner we found to be innapropriate, for this disruption and clear disregard to our guidance in a serious invesitigation over a serious allegation, we find no other recourse than to place him on the exemption list so he can be removed from the NFL platform until this can be handled adequately".

The message "if you are accused of a crime and we tell you not to **** around and do anymore stupid **** like aggressively contacting your accuser, listen to us".

Like I said, the NFL sent that memo out for a reason. It's a clear message to not sign him.

BUSTAMOVE said:

- Kraft asked Belichick, “How can you promise me this won’t happen again?”
Belichick couldn’t.

Click to expand...

If true, that right there is more than enough reason to cut Brown.

AndyJohnson said:

No doubt the NFL is aware that suspending him based upon an accusation not made to authorities would expose their players to enormous blackmail risk.
But every time AB opens his mouth he distances himself from that being the reason

Click to expand...

It’s amazing that the idiot doesn’t know if he keeps his mouth shut he’s doing himself a favor and heck maybe even winning .

lancerman said:

Won't happen. The league sent out a memo yesterday saying in so many words, "because Antonio Brown is not on a team, he can't be put on the exemption list, if he was on a team, he would be eligible to be put on it".

Which really means, "don't sign him, he ****ed up, right now we can do an invesitigation at our own pace and not have to worry about it, if you sign him, you'll force our hand and we'll put him on the exemption list and you'll be stuck paying him".

Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if the Pats in large part released him because they had a lot of money tied up into him and wanted to beat the NFL to the punch by releasing him before he was placed on the exemption list and they were stuck with his contract.

Click to expand...

I think the Patriots cut him because of the threatening texts, which occurred after they signed him, but I agree with you for the most part.

NYCPATS4LIFE said:

Everyone has their interpretations of what a threat is. That’s your opinion and you have right to it. To me it’s not a threat. Let’s see what the nfl does in its investigation. I think teams will wait until the nfl is done investigating. I don’t think it will take long .

Click to expand...

And to her she obviously thought it was and went to the NFL because it probably didn't meet a legal definition

lancerman said:

No it wouldn't. The NFL is going to argue, "we were conducting an invesitigation while a civil litigation was playing out, we explicitely instructed Brown to not contact these women, he did in a manner we found to be innapropriate, for this disruption and clear disregard to our guidance in a serious invesitigation over a serious allegation, we find no other recourse than to place him on the exemption list so he can be removed from the NFL platform until this can be handled adequately".

The message "if you are accused of a crime and we tell you not to **** around and do anymore stupid **** like aggressively contacting your accuser, listen to us".

Like I said, the NFL sent that memo out for a reason. It's a clear message to not sign him.

Click to expand...

Give me a break. This is a civil
matter and not a criminal now right now. They’re not gonna set the bar by doing this by we shall see. I think teams will wait it out. They won’t sign him right now until the investigation is over.

NYCPATS4LIFE said:

Give me a break. This is a civil
matter and not a criminal now right now. They’re not gonna set the bar by doing this by we shall see. I think teams will wait it out. They won’t sign him right now until the investigation is over.

Click to expand...

NYCPATS4LIFE said:

Everyone has their interpretations of what a threat is. That’s your opinion and you have right to it. To me it’s not a threat. Let’s see what the nfl does in its investigation. I think teams will wait until the nfl is done investigating. I don’t think it will take long .

Click to expand...

And to think I took you seriously last night when you said no more AB talk. Who the hell are all these people here defending the psycho named Antonio Brown? Makes me sick. Move on, the Pats already have.

NYCPATS4LIFE said:

Everyone has their interpretations of what a threat is. That’s your opinion and you have right to it. To me it’s not a threat. Let’s see what the nfl does in its investigation. I think teams will wait until the nfl is done investigating. I don’t think it will take long .

Click to expand...

You don’t think it will take long. Come on Mannnnn. The NFL is tired of this fool raining on its 100th Anniversary. They are getting flack from all sides of this matter. AB just keeps digging in deeper with no end in sight.

The problem is they do not want to exempt him yet because of negotiations with NFLPA but want him out of their mug. Once thePatriots signed off to Goodells convincing The NFL has given the wink wink nod nod gesture to all 32 teams to stay away this Cancer.

So now the NFL does not have to exempt him and they will take their living lord time coming to a conclusion. Why would they rush a decision when he is not playing for anyone and is now out of their hair

lancerman said:

He told her friend to dig up dirt on her. That's a threat.

Click to expand...

No it is not. Saying you are going to investigate the background of someone who is accusing you is not a threat.
Not by any means.
Oh and HIS LAWYER was on the text.

He has no jurisdiction or legal right over her life to order people to find information about her or to snoop around her personal life.

Click to expand...

Of course he does. There is nothing illegal about investigating someone who makes accusations against you. Especially when you ask YOUR LAWYER to do so.

Threat is a word. There is a legal standard for unlawful threats. Something can be a threatening and reach the thresholds of being unlawful. That is the grey area.

Click to expand...

If the “threat” does not reach the legal definition of a threat then by definition it is an acceptable action.
But again, where is the THREAT? I am going to try to find dirt on you is not a threat.

Definition of threat

threat·en
/ˈTHretn/
Learn to pronounce
verb
verb: threaten; 3rd person present: threatens; past tense: threatened; past participle: threatened; gerund or present participle: threatening

1. state one's intention to take hostile action against someone in retribution for something done or not done.
   "the unions threatened a general strike"
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   Similar:
   menace
   
   
   intimidate
   
   
   browbeat
   
   
   bully
   
   
   cow
   
   
   pressurize
   
   
   lean on
   
   
   terrorize
   
   
   frighten
   
   
   scare
   scare her into blurting out the truth" data-hw="scare" data-lb="" data-tae="true" data-te="false" data-tl="en-US" data-url="/search?client=safari&hl=en-us&q=define+scare&forcedict=scare&dictcorpus=en-US">
   
   alarm
   
   
   make threats against
   
   issue threats to
   
   threaten to harm/kill
   • express one's intention to harm or kill (someone).
     "the men threatened the customers with a handgun"
   • cause (someone or something) to be vulnerable or at risk; endanger.
     "a broken finger threatened his career"

Click to expand...

Nothing in those texts come close to that.

Criminal law requires higher thresholds to enact a process that takes away someones liberty (as it should). That doesn't mean someone can't do something that meets the spirit of certain words like threat or harrassment but is vague enough or obscured enough to not be legally actionable.

Click to expand...

Yes it does mean that. When you say someone threatened a person that word has a meaning.
You are literally now arguing it’s ok to use a word to describe something when it doesnt meet the words definition.
Why do that? Simply to sensationalize and misstate what really happened.

Also most people on facebook when they get in a dispute with someone aren't starting a group chat with their buddies and the person they have an issue with to berate them and talk about digging up dirt and asking around about them

Click to expand...

And if they did that would not be illegal, or threatening.

So Brown reportedly sent those texts while he was in the damned stadium. I’m sure BB loved that, too. Just the thing for Brown to be thinking about while at work.

NYCPATS4LIFE said:

It’s amazing that the idiot doesn’t know if he keeps his mouth shut he’s doing himself a favor and heck maybe even winning .

Click to expand...

Have you ever seen interviews with AB?

He is an absolute moron. He is arrogant, narcistic, toxic, stupid, selfish, self centered, self serving, an egomaniac, who is totally out of touch with reality and thinks that the greatest privilege a person can have is to be around him.

Why would you ever think he would make a good decision when it conflicts with his entitled right to do anything he wants and be above questioning?

What does this mean for our salary cap?

NYCPATS4LIFE said:

I meant our conference. The AFC east.

Click to expand...

Im telling you, this new guy is a Jets fan in disguise.

lancerman said:

And to her she obviously thought it was and went to the NFL because it probably didn't meet a legal definition

Click to expand...

I don’t think going to her local police would have done any good. The NFL and NE were much better options.

TB_Helmet said:

Im telling you, this new guy is a Jets fan in disguise.

Click to expand...

Quit assuming stuff about me. I root for the jersey no matter the player. I just hope we get some money back. I’m reading we might get the 9 million back which could help this year.

AndyJohnson said:

No it is not. Saying you are going to investigate the background of someone who is accusing you is not a threat.
Not by any means.
Oh and HIS LAWYER was on the text.




Of course he does. There is nothing illegal about investigating someone who makes accusations against you. Especially when you ask YOUR LAWYER to do so.



If the “threat” does not reach the legal definition of a threat then by definition it is an acceptable action.
But again, where is the THREAT? I am going to try to find dirt on you is not a threat.

Definition of threat

Nothing in those texts come close to that.



Yes it does mean that. When you say someone threatened a person that word has a meaning.
You are literally now arguing it’s ok to use a word to describe something when it doesnt meet the words definition.
Why do that? Simply to sensationalize and misstate what really happened.


And if they did that would not be illegal, or threatening.

Click to expand...

Bruh, just stop. Whether it was truly threatening or not, it was incredibly stupid. You don't give opportunity to turn public perception against you by sending dumb **** to your accuser.

As someone that was just in the middle of a potential litigation with a government contracting agency, you let your lawyer do the communicating and stay out of it. Because if you get emotional, you loose.