View Single Post
Old 05-02-2012, 05:32 PM   #45
GoldRush26
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Age: 38
Posts: 13,563
GoldRush26 is an Sr.com Hall of FamerGoldRush26 is an Sr.com Hall of FamerGoldRush26 is an Sr.com Hall of Famer
GoldRush26 is an Sr.com Hall of FamerGoldRush26 is an Sr.com Hall of FamerGoldRush26 is an Sr.com Hall of FamerGoldRush26 is an Sr.com Hall of FamerGoldRush26 is an Sr.com Hall of FamerGoldRush26 is an Sr.com Hall of FamerGoldRush26 is an Sr.com Hall of FamerGoldRush26 is an Sr.com Hall of FamerGoldRush26 is an Sr.com Hall of FamerGoldRush26 is an Sr.com Hall of FamerGoldRush26 is an Sr.com Hall of FamerGoldRush26 is an Sr.com Hall of FamerGoldRush26 is an Sr.com Hall of FamerGoldRush26 is an Sr.com Hall of FamerGoldRush26 is an Sr.com Hall of Famer
Quote:
Originally Posted by bclemms View Post
Ok, so lets say the intent was there to injure a player regardless if it was legal or not. No injury occured. The police couldn't charge with murder, hell, in this case they couldn't even charge with attempted murder because the actual attempt was never made. The best they could do is conspiracy to commit murder.

You have players that have stomped on players heads and gotten 4 and 6 game suspensions. The intent to injure was there, they attempted to injure them and they did so in a fashion that is completely against the rules.

I don't think Vilma was even fined between 09-11.

If you want to compare this to the police pressing charges then I'll play.

A guy kills his wife, police arrest him and jury convicts. He gets 25 years in prison.

The next day a guy talks about killing his wife in the guys locker room but never as much as raises his hand to her.
Police arrest him, jury convicts and he gets 100 years in prison.
Maybe I misspoke. Just because the alleged bounty wasn't collected doesn't mean that players didn't attempt to injure for the purposes of collecting. That's what I believe the NFL would argue. They are treating the statement and the intent as one and the same. You just can't say it.

The burden of proof in regards to proving that someone tried and failed to injure someone for a bounty would be extremely difficult to satisfy in a court of law, but the NFL isn't a court of law. What exact evidence do they have? I don't know. None of us know, but that's silly to suggest that no evidence exists just because we don't know what it is. This isn't going to be like the OJ trial where everything is out there for the world to see. What benefit would there be for the NFL to publicize evidence against Vilma?

I'm just preparing people for the reality that the NFL lawyers have already hypothesized every arguement that Vilma's representation will likely present and they are confident it will hold, otherwise these sactions would not have been handed down in the first place.
GoldRush26 is offline Reply With Quote


0 out of 3 members found this post helpful.