DL Myles Garrett reinstated

[Shorttynaz]

1 hour ago, Big John said:

Prelude to a lawsuit?

 

Not according to a Browns fan who occasionally blesses this forum with his inside information. 

 

Nope.  Instead it's just part of the game.  🤣🤣

Edited February 15, 2020 by Shorttynaz

[Shaft]

On 2/15/2020 at 8:59 AM, League_Champion said:

 

It's still assault at the very least, he tried to take his dam head off. A crime is a crime everywhere. Local authorities could easily of pressed charges against Garrett. They won't because it's the NFL and it would be a Shizz Storm that nobody wants. It's easier and safer to let them police themselves, even though they can't. Besides, once Garrett started throwing around the "N Word" nobody was going to touch it. Everyone backed off. 

 

On 2/15/2020 at 8:48 AM, Gourdeau said:

 

Difference is most of the physical activity is legal within the confines of that sport. Once you step out of the legalities of that activity/ game/ sport, the act in question should be open to regular sanctions. In this case a crime. The only reason it wasn't is because he didn't hit him clean. I don't think a lot of people realize how bad this could have turned out if he hits him clean. Marty Mcsorley vs Donald Brashear in the NHL is a prime example. 

 

 

On 2/13/2020 at 3:50 PM, Shorttynaz said:

In any other environment, that is battery - a crime punishable by jail / prison time. 

 

Hilarious that we STILL see Browns fans defending it saying Rudolph had it coming.  Rudolph was not innocent, but Garrett had no place to take justice into his own hands.  Still baffled why Garrett wasn't formally charged.  

 

 

 

On 2/14/2020 at 1:37 PM, stevegrab said:

 

UMM pretty sure most of the physical action going on in a football game would be considered a crime as well, guess we should eliminate the sport altogether.

Can't believe people are so concerned about this with all the real problems in the world today. 30-40 years ago NFL players suffered far worse physical contact that Rudolph did that night. People like you are acting like he was hospitalized with a broken neck. 

 

Your nonsense trying to make this out to be a crime is either trolling or pure delusion. 

 

All of these people talking "crime" are a little off basis. Things are different in the private sector, which the NFL is. If that's the case, Bill Romanowski should be serving serious time for the stuff he did. Everything that happens on the NFL field could be considered assault and/or battery. "Assumption of risk" is an unknown defense that protects most of these players in contact sports. In addition, NO NFL player has ever been charged for a crime with something that happens on the field. This would establish a dangerous precedent. 

 

Civil course is another matter. 

[Bobby Brown]

2 hours ago, Shaft said:

 

 

 

 

 

All of these people talking "crime" are a little off basis. Things are different in the private sector, which the NFL is. If that's the case, Bill Romanowski should be serving serious time for the stuff he did. Everything that happens on the NFL field could be considered assault and/or battery. "Assumption of risk" is an unknown defense that protects most of these players in contact sports. In addition, NO NFL player has ever been charged for a crime with something that happens on the field. This would establish a dangerous precedent. 

 

Civil course is another matter. 

This.  "If I did this at my job....," is a meaningless and ridiculous false equivalency.  That should be obvious. 

[Shorttynaz]

14 minutes ago, Bobby Brown said:

This.  "If I did this at my job....," is a meaningless and ridiculous false equivalency.  That should be obvious. 

This makes no sense.  Shouldn't matter if it was on the field, on the street, in a pool, on a plane, etc.  Battery is battery - its not dependent on where it happens. 

 

Ive been accused in the past by a nameless wonder for taking this stance as its the Browns.  I don't care if it was D Leonard, Chandler Jones, P Mahomes or M Thomas (all guys I really like).  I'd take the same stance.  

 

Ive yet to read one valid argument that dismisses any legal penalty for what Garrett did.  Saying “because it happened on the field” is Bush League.  

Edited February 16, 2020 by Shorttynaz

[Shaft]

15 minutes ago, Shorttynaz said:

This makes no sense.  Shouldn't matter if it was on the field, on the street, in a pool, on a plane, etc.  Battery is battery - its not dependent on where it happens. 

 

Ive been accused in the past by a nameless wonder for taking this stance as its the Browns.  I don't care if it was D Leonard, Chandler Jones, P Mahomes or M Thomas (all guys I really like).  I'd take the same stance.  

 

Ive yet to read one valid argument that dismisses any legal penalty for what Garrett did.  Saying “because it happened on the field” is Bush League.  

It is dependent on where it happens. You're going to arrest Boxers? Or people in the MMA? Did he cross the line? Of course, he did, but where do you draw the line? Like I said, no one has EVER been charged on the field. It would set a dangerous precedent and no one would no where to draw the line.

[rajncajn]

I have to agree with Shaft on this one. Something that happens in the heat of the moment like it did on the football field is not as big a deal as a lot of people are making it out to be. Had he actually injured Rudolph, then I'd probably agree that a suit should be in order, but considering the things Rudolph did leading up to Garrett swinging the helmet at him, I doubt he'd win. What if Rudolph had injured Garrett while trying to rip his helmet off of him? Shouldn't that be considered assault by the same standards?

[Def.]

24 minutes ago, Shorttynaz said:

This makes no sense.  Shouldn't matter if it was on the field, on the street, in a pool, on a plane, etc.  Battery is battery - its not dependent on where it happens. 

 

Ive been accused in the past by a nameless wonder for taking this stance as its the Browns.  I don't care if it was D Leonard, Chandler Jones, P Mahomes or M Thomas (all guys I really like).  I'd take the same stance.  

 

Ive yet to read one valid argument that dismisses any legal penalty for what Garrett did.  Saying “because it happened on the field” is Bush League.  

 

If I understand you correctly, every fight that has ever occurred in any sport after the play/whistle is battery by your definition.

 

Not one person here has dismissed what Garrett has done, some just don't share your hyperbolic view on it.  

[Shorttynaz]

14 minutes ago, Shaft said:

You're going to arrest Boxers? Or people in the MMA? 

I have yet to see a boxing match or UFC fight where people use weapons.  Maybe I'm missing something?? 

[Shorttynaz]

3 minutes ago, Def. said:

 

If I understand you correctly, every fight that has ever occurred in any sport after the play/whistle is battery by your definition.

 

Not one person here has dismissed what Garrett has done, some just don't share your hyperbolic view on it.  

Getting into a fight is different than assaulting someone with a weapon

[Shorttynaz]

I mean again, everything that I'm reading in this thread is saying because of his football it is okay. The only other sport that I can find where something like this that has happened is hockey where players have used their stick as a weapon. Criminal charges have been filed in those instances.  What makes football any different?

[Shorttynaz]

I do understand the argument that Rudolph had it coming. He did, for not only assaulting Myles Garrett but using a racial slur as well.

 

I will say the assault that Rudolph did against Garrett was pretty blatant in my eyes but others may fail to see it that way.  As for the racial slur it is not a crime to use your freedom of speech. 

 

Garrett had an emotional reaction and committed a crime to which so far he has gotten away from any criminal charges. That is my issue in all of this.  Simply for the fact that I could be out playing a softball game on Friday night with some friends against another team in which the other team starts running their mouth. I can take off my helmet and smash one of the other guys in the head to which does not break skin - and per the general consensus on this forum, that's okay and I will not be hit with any charges.  

Edited February 16, 2020 by Shorttynaz

[Shaft]

39 minutes ago, Shorttynaz said:

I do understand the argument that Rudolph had it coming. He did, for not only assaulting Myles Garrett but using a racial slur as well.

 

I will say the assault that Rudolph did against Garrett was pretty blatant in my eyes but others may fail to see it that way.  As for the racial slur it is not a crime to use your freedom of speech. 

 

Garrett had an emotional reaction and committed a crime to which so far he has gotten away from any criminal charges. That is my issue in all of this.  Simply for the fact that I could be out playing a softball game on Friday night with some friends against another team in which the other team starts running their mouth. I can take off my helmet and smash one of the other guys in the head to which does not break skin - and per the general consensus on this forum, that's okay and I will not be hit with any charges.  

 

I think you have "selective reading." 

[League_Champion]

6 hours ago, Shaft said:

 

 

 

 

 

All of these people talking "crime" are a little off basis. Things are different in the private sector, which the NFL is. If that's the case, Bill Romanowski should be serving serious time for the stuff he did. Everything that happens on the NFL field could be considered assault and/or battery. "Assumption of risk" is an unknown defense that protects most of these players in contact sports. In addition, NO NFL player has ever been charged for a crime with something that happens on the field. This would establish a dangerous precedent. 

 

Civil course is another matter. 

 

No, no , no. Assault is assault and.last time I checked it is not stated in the rulebook that you can remove someone's helmet and try to kill them with it. It's not the UFC 

[League_Champion]

4 hours ago, Bobby Brown said:

This.  "If I did this at my job....," is a meaningless and ridiculous false equivalency.  That should be obvious. 

 

How Bobby? Assault is assault. Why would it be ok to assault someone on a football field as opposed to in the stands? It's not hard to understand, it's cut & dry. 

[Shaft]

1 hour ago, League_Champion said:

 

No, no , no. Assault is assault and.last time I checked it is not stated in the rulebook that you can remove someone's helmet and try to kill them with it. It's not the UFC 

You cannot mix the rules with law. It's not cut & dry. If it was he would be in handcuffs.

[League_Champion]

8 minutes ago, Shaft said:

You cannot mix the rules with law. It's not cut & dry. If it was he would be in handcuffs.

 

Where in the "rules" exactly does it say this is ok? The law is the law. What if you took an axe to someone's head during a game? That's a weapon, just like a helmet or fist is. And you know why it's not going to be prosecuted. It's the NFL machine. 

[Shorttynaz]

13 minutes ago, Shaft said:

You cannot mix the rules with law. It's not cut & dry. If it was he would be in handcuffs.

No one is mixing rules with the law!  And you're right.  It's not cut and dry.  The law is the law, but I guess it doesn't state that in the rulebook.  

[Shorttynaz]

Just now, League_Champion said:

 

Where in the "rules" exactly does it say this is ok? The law is the law. What if you took an axe to someone's head during a game? That's a weapon, just like a helmet or fist is. And you know why it's not going to be prosecuted. It's the NFL machine. 

I mean by this logic, someone may as well go straight up Last Boyscout and start popping off defenders with a pistol.  It's not in the rulebook either.  Why?  Cause the law is still the law.  

[League_Champion]

20 minutes ago, Shorttynaz said:

I mean by this logic, someone may as well go straight up Last Boyscout and start popping off defenders with a pistol.  It's not in the rulebook either.  Why?  Cause the law is still the law.  

 

Linebackers should be able to carry knives as well. Hey, It's not illegal if it's not in the rule book.

[Shaft]

58 minutes ago, Shorttynaz said:

I mean by this logic, someone may as well go straight up Last Boyscout and start popping off defenders with a pistol.  It's not in the rulebook either.  Why?  Cause the law is still the law.  

Then call the cops and press charges, you have plenty of evidence. 

[Shorttynaz]

7 minutes ago, Shaft said:

Then call the cops and press charges, you have plenty of evidence. 

I wasn't assaulted 

[Shaft]

37 minutes ago, Shorttynaz said:

I wasn't assaulted 

It doesn't matter! The prosecutor/state press charges, not the individual. 

 

Dude, I'm letting it go. You're clearly in the minority here, and everywhere else, on this topic.. Dance to your own beat. 

[Shorttynaz]

53 minutes ago, Shaft said:

It doesn't matter! The prosecutor/state press charges, not the individual. 

 

Dude, I'm letting it go. You're clearly in the minority here, and everywhere else, on this topic.. Dance to your own beat. 

May be in the minority here on this board, but I'd debate “elsewhere else” as a crime is a crime. 

 

With that, I'm off to baseball forums these next few months.  Don't wait up. 

 

Now, for that dance...

 

Edited February 17, 2020 by Shorttynaz

[League_Champion]

8 hours ago, Shaft said:

It doesn't matter! The prosecutor/state press charges, not the individual. 

 

Dude, I'm letting it go. You're clearly in the minority here, and everywhere else, on this topic.. Dance to your own beat. 

 

What in your eyes would constitute "assault" on a football field? 

[rajncajn]

1 hour ago, League_Champion said:

 

What in your eyes would constitute "assault" on a football field? 

If he'd actually injured him...

 

Though, I wouldn't really consider a football helmet a "deadly weapon" either and I'm pretty certain when Garrett swung the helmet at him his intent wasn't to kill him.

 

I agree, Garrett did something really stupid and dangerous and he certainly needed to be punished for it, which he was. But all this outage and talk of assault charges and jail time is just a bit overboard. And fwiw I'm usually on the side of heavy punishment for players acting badly, I just don't see it past the point of what he actually got. 

Edited February 17, 2020 by rajncajn