Will Brady be punished?
-
lhslep134
Another learning lesson on circumstantial evidence for Webbie--it can range from extremely strong to extremely tenuous, but it's still circumstantial evidence. You can think it's tenuous, but you cannot deny its existence -
WebFire
I admit bad example.lhslep134;1728725 wrote:I addressed that, here. Just because you're still too dense to realize it doesn't make you right and everyone else wrong lmao.
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 -
lhslep134
No. Mine is not an opinion. It is a fact that the evidence uncovered in the Wells report is circumstantial evidence*. Your refusal to see that is a sign of intellectual weakness, at least in this specific regard.WebFire;1728730 wrote: Just like yours is an opinion.
*Any evidence uncovered is either direct or circumstantial. Or it's not evidence at all. You clearly have no ability to appreciate what I keep repeating. -
WebFire
Ok then. I still disagree with the punishment. Argue about circumstantial evidence all you want.lhslep134;1728732 wrote:Another learning lesson on circumstantial evidence for Webbie--it can range from extremely strong to extremely tenuous, but it's still circumstantial evidence. You can think it's tenuous, but you cannot deny its existence -
WebFire
Your opinion is that he should be punished because of the texts.lhslep134;1728734 wrote:No. Mine is not an opinion. It is a fact that the evidence uncovered in the Wells report is circumstantial evidence. Your refusal to see that is a sign of intellectual weakness, at least in this specific regard. -
WebFire
Resorting to insults I see. A sign of intellectual weakness for sure.lhslep134;1728734 wrote:No. Mine is not an opinion. It is a fact that the evidence uncovered in the Wells report is circumstantial evidence. Your refusal to see that is a sign of intellectual weakness, at least in this specific regard. -
queencitybuckeye
People are convicted of actual crimes, with a far higher burden of proof, based solely on circumstantial evidence every day. There's no concept in law I'm aware of that says circumstantial evidence < direct evidence.wkfan;1728731 wrote:And this conclusion that you have come to is based solely on circumstantial proof. -
lhslep134
Please show me where I said this. I'll be waiting awhile. I didn't chime in to say the punishment was warranted or not, I chimed in to teach you a lesson on circumstantial evidence.WebFire;1728736 wrote:Your opinion is that he should be punished because of the texts. -
WebFire
Ok glad we agree he shouldn't be punished.lhslep134;1728739 wrote:Please show me where I said this. I'll be waiting awhile. I didn't chime in to say the punishment was warranted or not, I chimed in to teach you a lesson on circumstantial evidence. -
lhslep134
It's not an insult. It's an objective analysis of your refusal to acknowledge what circumstantial evidence is and how it operates.WebFire;1728737 wrote:Resorting to insults I see. A sign of intellectual weakness for sure. -
lhslep134
I didn't say that either. Your reading comprehension skills are comically badWebFire;1728740 wrote:Ok glad we agree he shouldn't be punished. -
WebFire
But I do know.lhslep134;1728741 wrote:It's not an insult. It's an objective analysis of your refusal to acknowledge what circumstantial evidence is and how it operates. -
lhslep134
No you don't, as evidenced by your repeated posts showing a lack of comprehension.WebFire;1728743 wrote:But I do know. -
WebFire
Oh I see. Gee if everything is so black and white, then why do we even have lawyers.lhslep134;1728744 wrote:No you don't, as evidenced by your repeated posts showing a lack of comprehension. -
lhslep134
You denied the circumstantial nature of circumstantial evidence; what more evidence do you need you have no ability to comprehend this matter?WebFire;1728708 wrote:The texts? Even those aren't even circumstantial. -
sleeper
Except the pressure is a range and some QBs like it towards the lower end and others towards the higher end. There's nothing wrong with Brady saying "Hey, I like my balls a little flat, keep them that way"; which is entirely different than Brady going "I know the lowest limit is 12.5 but make them go lower than that". It's not Brady's job to monitor the equipment. That's why the suspension is BS because there is NO EVIDENCE that Brady intentionally broke the rules.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. -
WebFire
Ok, let's do this different. From the texts alone, how do you conclude that he broke the rule?lhslep134;1728746 wrote:You denied the circumstantial nature of circumstantial evidence; what more evidence do you need you have no ability to comprehend this matter? -
lhslep134
FIFYsleeper;1728748 wrote: That's why the suspension is BS because there is NO DIRECT EVIDENCE that Brady intentionally broke the rules. -
lhslep134
Completely different analysis than the nature of the evidence. Now you're speaking to the strength of the evidence, not its nature. And you said you know how circumstantial evidence works lol.WebFire;1728749 wrote:Ok, let's do this different. From the texts alone, how do you conclude that he broke the rule? -
sleeper
There's no circumstantial evidence either. The existance of "evidence" is irrelevant when the evidence doesn't even come close to proving that Brady intentionally broke the rules.lhslep134;1728750 wrote:FIFY -
sleeper
Anyways, I expect Brady to win his appeal because the suspension is a load of crap.
-
WebFire
Even circumstantial evidence has to lead to a conclusion. LOLlhslep134;1728751 wrote:Completely different analysis than the nature of the evidence. Now you're speaking to the strength of the evidence, not its nature. And you said you know how circumstantial evidence works lol. -
queencitybuckeye
After he loses the appeal, he's free to sue the league, and the texts he may or may not be hiding will be revealed for all to see.sleeper;1728748 wrote:Except the pressure is a range and some QBs like it towards the lower end and others towards the higher end. There's nothing wrong with Brady saying "Hey, I like my balls a little flat, keep them that way"; which is entirely different than Brady going "I know the lowest limit is 12.5 but make them go lower than that". It's not Brady's job to monitor the equipment. That's why the suspension is BS because there is NO EVIDENCE that Brady intentionally broke the rules. -
WebFire
Are texts stored by providers? And if so for how long?queencitybuckeye;1728755 wrote:After he loses the appeal, he's free to sue the league, and the texts he may or may not be hiding will be revealed for all to see. -
sleeper
And the NFL better hope these alleged texts are more than just "Hey I like my balls a little less inflated" because anything short of "Please, equipment guy, break the rules by under-inflating the balls for this game and in return I will sign some stuff for you" will be laughed at. I hope Brady sues them and wins $500M in punitive damages.queencitybuckeye;1728755 wrote:After he loses the appeal, he's free to sue the league, and the texts he may or may not be hiding will be revealed for all to see.