Will Brady be punished?

• wkfan

  queencitybuckeye;1728695 wrote:Prove, no. Evidence? Yes.

  Prove, no. Evidence, no.
  
  Evidence - "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."
• queencitybuckeye

  wkfan;1728696 wrote:Prove, no. Evidence, no.
  
  Evidence - "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

  I'd argue that his refusal to turn over any evidence he may have meets the definition you posted (remember: the 5th doesn't apply, we're allowed to consider what Occam's Razor tells us his refusal means). He refused to turn over evidence. That is a fact. That alone meets your definition.
• wkfan

  queencitybuckeye;1728697 wrote:I'd argue that his refusal to turn over any evidence he may have meets the definition you posted (remember: the 5th doesn't apply, we're allowed to consider what Occam's Razor tells us his refusal means). He refused to turn over evidence. That is a fact. That alone meets your definition.

  I think you have a comprehension problem.
• queencitybuckeye

  wkfan;1728698 wrote:I think you have a comprehension problem.

  You have the right to that opinion.
• WebFire

  HitsRus;1728680 wrote:That's exactly right. The NFL has no subpoena power, because this is not the United States judicial system. This is the NFL, an organization that has it's own rules,... and if you wish to be part of it, then you agree to abide by its rules and its authority, and the authority of the commissioner who is charged to act in the best interests of the game.

  No shit. I think that's been mentioned a thousand times now. So you think we should just all agree with whatever the commish does because they can make their own rules and do what they want?
  
  I don't agree.
  
  I'm not even saying I don't think he did it. But to do an investigation and come back with "probably", then lay the smackdown in him. Sorry, I think that's bullshit.
• WebFire

  queencitybuckeye;1728695 wrote:Prove, no. Evidence? Yes.

  Definitely not evidence. In fact, the opposite.
• WebFire

  lhslep134;1728663 wrote:Don't be dense and make me re-iterate what you are so obviously choosing to ignore.

  The texts? Even those aren't even circumstantial.
• queencitybuckeye

  WebFire;1728707 wrote:Definitely not evidence. In fact, the opposite.

  What does this mean? Evidence is binary, it is or it isn't. It doesn't have an opposite.
• lhslep134

  

  WebFire;1728708 wrote:The texts? Even those aren't even circumstantial.

  This response shows a complete lack of understanding of circumstantial evidence
• WebFire

  queencitybuckeye;1728711 wrote:What does this mean? Evidence is binary, it is or it isn't. It doesn't have an opposite.

  Good point. I meant it's NOT evidence.
• WebFire

  lhslep134;1728712 wrote:This response shows a complete lack of understanding of circumstantial evidence

  Bitching about one's boss is not circumstantial evidence.
• lhslep134

  

  queencitybuckeye;1728711 wrote:What does this mean? Evidence is binary, it is or it isn't. It doesn't have an opposite.

  He doesn't understand what circumstantial evidence is or how it functions.
  
  If he does, then he's purposely being dense.
• lhslep134

  

  It's blindingly obvious that Webbie has no idea what the term "circumstantial evidence" means.
  
  Here's some learning material for you Webbie http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2015/05/12/deflategate-evidence-is-circumstantial-but-that-doesnt-mean-nfls-punishments-are-off-target/
• lhslep134

  

  Here's an article from the Boston Globe. Note the language used "The case against them is a pile of circumstantial evidence, from text messages to conflicting testimony from Brady, equipment assistant John Jastremski, and officials locker room attendant Jim McNally."
  
  http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/05/07/wells-report-may-unsettling-but-settles-nothing/abNbP0DlPrmMRMzo7k5afL/story.html
  
  Just because you disagree with the punishment doesn't mean you can argue against the existence of circumstantial evidence. It means you disagree with the connection between the evidence and the punishment, not that the evidence doesn't exist.
  
  Your repeated failure to appreciate the distinction is baffling.
  
  
• WebFire

  lhslep134;1728717 wrote:It's blindingly obvious that Webbie has no idea what the term "circumstantial evidence" means.
  
  Here's some learning material for you Webbie http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2015/05/12/deflategate-evidence-is-circumstantial-but-that-doesnt-mean-nfls-punishments-are-off-target/

  I do know what it means. I disagree that it is circumstantial. To me, this is circumstantial...
  
  Via text from 1 ball guy to the next..."Tom is such a douche. I can't believe he is making us break the rules."
  
  The actual texts never provide any indication that they are doing anything against the rules, but rather that they hate Tom because he harps on them to remove air from the balls. And at one point bitches at them for having them at 16 psi, waaaaaaaaaay about the lower limit of the rules.
  
  The only thing we can conclude from the texts is that Tom likes less air in the ball than what the ball guys were giving him. And that maybe Tom is a dick.
  
  This why I don't think it is circumstantial.
• WebFire

  lhslep134;1728719 wrote:Here's an article from the Boston Globe. Note the language used "The case against them is a pile of circumstantial evidence, from text messages to conflicting testimony from Brady, equipment assistant John Jastremski, and officials locker room attendant Jim McNally."
  
  http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/05/07/wells-report-may-unsettling-but-settles-nothing/abNbP0DlPrmMRMzo7k5afL/story.html
  
  Just because you disagree with the punishment doesn't mean you can argue against the existence of circumstantial evidence. It means you disagree with the connection between the evidence and the punishment, not that the evidence doesn't exist.
  
  Your repeated failure to appreciate the distinction is baffling.
  
  

  Likewise, just because a journalist proclaims it is, doesn't mean I have to think it is.
• HitsRus

  

  So you think we should just all agree with whatever the commish does because they can make their own rules and do what they want?

  I've already said that I thought the punishment was too severe considering the NFL's degree of complicity. I'm just stating a fact "that's been mentioned a thousand times"....so why don't you( and others) get it? That's his job, that his right and prerogative as commissioner. This is an integrity issue, and ALL sports look at violations of this sort very seriously.
• WebFire

  HitsRus;1728722 wrote:I've already said that I thought the punishment was too severe considering the NFL's degree of complicity. I'm just stating a fact "that's been mentioned a thousand times"....so why don't you( and others) get it? That's his job, that his right and prerogative as commissioner. This is an integrity issue, and ALL sports look at violations of this sort very seriously.

  I do get it. Why does that mean I have to agree with it?
• WebFire

  All I'm saying (this whole time), is I think it's ridiculous to come back with "he probably did it! BAM guilty as charged!"
• lhslep134

  

  WebFire;1728720 wrote:
  The actual texts never provide any indication that they are doing anything against the rules, but rather that they hate Tom because he harps on them to remove air from the balls.

  I addressed that, here. Just because you're still too dense to realize it doesn't make you right and everyone else wrong lmao.
  

  lhslep134;1728719 wrote:
  Just because you disagree with the punishment doesn't mean you can argue against the existence of circumstantial evidence. It means you disagree with the connection between the evidence and the punishment, not that the evidence doesn't exist.
  
  

  WebFire;1728720 wrote:I do know what it means. I disagree that it is circumstantial. To me, this is circumstantial...
  
  Via text from 1 ball guy to the next..."Tom is such a douche. I can't believe he is making us break the rules."
  

  This is clear proof you have no idea what circumstantial evidence means. "I can't believe he is making us break the rules" is direct evidence, not circumstantial evidence.
  
  It's painfully obvious you're incapable of intellectually distinguishing between the two
• queencitybuckeye

  WebFire;1728724 wrote:All I'm saying (this whole time), is I think it's ridiculous to come back with "he probably did it! BAM guilty as charged!"

  There's no question the staffers did it.
  
  There's no reason for them to do it unless it benefits someone.
  
  It benefits exactly one player.
  
  The one player it benefits refuses to cooperate with the investigation.
  
  The conclusion just isn't that hard.
• lhslep134

  

  Rational take: the punishment is too strong given that the evidence is circumstantial and not direct
  
  Irrational take: there is no circumstantial evidence
  
  Webbie, do you see which category you fall under?
• lhslep134

  

  queencitybuckeye;1728726 wrote:There's no question the staffers did it.
  
  There's no reason for them to do it unless it benefits someone.
  
  It benefits exactly one player.
  
  The one player it benefits refuses to cooperate with the investigation.
  
  The conclusion just isn't that hard.

  And even then you can disagree with the severity of the punishment. But you cannot deny the existence of circumstantial evidence (lol @ webbie)
• WebFire

  lhslep134;1728725 wrote:
  
  
  
  This is clear proof you have no idea what circumstantial evidence means. "I can't believe he is making us break the rules" is direct evidence, not circumstantial evidence.
  
  It's painfully obvious you're not capable of intellectually distinguishing between the two

  Direct evidence - witnessing a murder.
  Indirect evidence - seeing someone enter a house, hear screams, find dead body.
  
  The texts don't even see anyone enter the house. Rather, the texts are more like thinking a guy in your neighborhood is creepy.
  
  I've said all I can say. I think it's bullshit and that's my opinion. Note the word opinion. Just like yours is an opinion.
• wkfan

  queencitybuckeye;1728726 wrote:There's no question the staffers did it.
  
  There's no reason for them to do it unless it benefits someone.
  
  It benefits exactly one player.
  
  The one player it benefits refuses to cooperate with the investigation.
  
  The conclusion just isn't that hard.

  And this conclusion that you have come to is based solely on circumstantial proof.