Not impressed with the hands up BS displayed by the Rams WRs

[Memento]

Well said they were representing the Rams at that moment if they want to represent themselves they need to do it on their own time .

That's the problem. There isn't a time to represent themselves. I guarantee you that if they commented on the issue on Twitter or whatever during even the offseason, they'd still be slammed by people who would say that they're representing the Rams at that moment. No matter what side they would have chosen or when and where they decided to show their opinion, they'd still get slammed, so why not do it during a game if you're going to get grief for it anyway?

 

[Mackeyser]

Supposedly the DA provided all the evidence. It certainly took enough time and they heard from many witnesses. There was nothing to 'acquit' since there was not even enough to 'indict'. Not even on the least of the charges.

Providing all the evidence is NOT the function of the Grand Jury. That's what I keep saying and folks just do NOT understand.

As Justice Scalia said and is the standard for how Grand Juries function, the DA need only present that evidence necessary for the Grand Jury to reach an indictment. The Grand Jury is NOT the venue for exculpatory evidence and the accused has no right to testify before the Grand Jury.

Further, there was plenty enough to indict. Problem is that there are REASONS why they didn't indict.

1) the behavior of the DA is important. The DA didn't present this high profile case. The Grand Jury isn't sequestered. To delegate such a high profile case might make sense in LA, NY or Chicago, but in Ferguson, MO? Not a chance. He had to be very familiar with the Grand Jury.

2) the DA's office didn't present the case. The DA's office presented the Grand Jury with a bunch of evidence, much of it conflicting, did NOT confront Officer Wilson on his various testimonies and did NOT proceed through the various counts and WHY the Grand Jury SHOULD indict.

3) The DA's office specifically presented a LOT of exculpatory evidence to the Grand Jury without explanation. This, coupled with NOT stating WHY the Grand Jury SHOULD indict made it quite easy for the Grand Jury to return No True bills on all counts.

So I don't repeat myself ad nauseum, it'd probably be better to just read my post above on what the Grand Jury finding is and isn't.

Your misunderstanding of this is rather common. Unfortunately. But to be perfectly clear, there WAS plenty enough to indict if the DA had wanted to indict. Even a little bit.

 

[RhodyRams]

I have read that other teams players have done the same thing the Rams WRs did, including the Washington Redskins

I wonder how Redskins fans and Washington DC fans feel about this.... http://t.co/X1bf9oNNLA

 

[LazyWinker]

Really so Dr Ben Carson really did not work his way out of a bad situation in spite of the color of his skin to become a great surgeon?

All of the players involved in this incident are no paid better than most Americans to play a game?

I shook his hand 6 and a half years ago... that is all

 

[Philly5]

Providing all the evidence is NOT the function of the Grand Jury. That's what I keep saying and folks just do NOT understand.

As Justice Scalia said and is the standard for how Grand Juries function, the DA need only present that evidence necessary for the Grand Jury to reach an indictment. The Grand Jury is NOT the venue for exculpatory evidence and the accused has no right to testify before the Grand Jury.

Further, there was plenty enough to indict. Problem is that there are REASONS why they didn't indict.

1) the behavior of the DA is important. The DA didn't present this high profile case. The Grand Jury isn't sequestered. To delegate such a high profile case might make sense in LA, NY or Chicago, but in Ferguson, MO? Not a chance. He had to be very familiar with the Grand Jury.

2) the DA's office didn't present the case. The DA's office presented the Grand Jury with a bunch of evidence, much of it conflicting, did NOT confront Officer Wilson on his various testimonies and did NOT proceed through the various counts and WHY the Grand Jury SHOULD indict.

3) The DA's office specifically presented a LOT of exculpatory evidence to the Grand Jury without explanation. This, coupled with NOT stating WHY the Grand Jury SHOULD indict made it quite easy for the Grand Jury to return No True bills on all counts.

So I don't repeat myself ad nauseum, it'd probably be better to just read my post above on what the Grand Jury finding is and isn't.

Your misunderstanding of this is rather common. Unfortunately. But to be perfectly clear, there WAS plenty enough to indict if the DA had wanted to indict. Even a little bit.

IMO, the DA went out of his way to satisfy people because it was such a high profile case. He did not personally present the case because there was criticism that he was biased because of an incident with his family. All the evidence was presented because they did not want to be second guessed. The presser went into a great deal of detail to show how thorough things were done. The squeaky wheel got plenty of grease, yet people like yourself still criticize because you did not like the outcome.

Despite all the special treatment there was still not enough to indict on even the least charge.

 

[RamFan503]

That's the problem. There isn't a time to represent themselves. I guarantee you that if they commented on the issue on Twitter or whatever during even the offseason, they'd still be slammed by people who would say that they're representing the Rams at that moment. No matter what side they would have chosen or when and where they decided to show their opinion, they'd still get slammed, so why not do it during a game if you're going to get grief for it anyway?

That is actually not true. These guys have personal time and they were playing at home this week. There would have been ample opportunity. If they had done it on their time, there no doubt would be people still railing against them but that would be their personal time and most would get that. The franchise would not be lumped in with them - instead just that they were football players that play for the Rams. It may seem like a small difference but it is not.

 

[Mackeyser]

IMO, the DA went out of his way to satisfy people because it was such a high profile case. He did not personally present the case because there was criticism that he was biased because of an incident with his family. All the evidence was presented because they did not want to be second guessed. The presser went into a great deal of detail to show how thorough things were done. The squeaky wheel got plenty of grease, yet people like yourself still criticize because you did not like the outcome.

Despite all the special treatment there was still not enough to indict on even the least charge.

Well, you're free to have your opinion, of course, but facts are facts.

It's probably best if you just reread what I already wrote in these two threads.

I'm NOT on a team, btw. I'm criticizing the PROCESS.

Because the process was so blatantly biased in favor of Officer Wilson, Team Wilsonites are criticizing me as if I'm on Team Brown.

Not so. I'm not on any team. As I put it earlier, If I had to put it one way, it'd be I'm on the Referee Oversight Committee. That'd be my "team". If I had to have one.

So, for those who are squarely on Team Wilson (and you know who you are), you can't paint me into being against you. I'm not. I'm against a crap process that denied BOTH families justice.

Again, as I've said now multiple times. Better to read back. Easier on everyone.

 

[blackbart]

c'mon, that's not going to work on me.

Fair enough your's didn't work on me either

 

[Dagonet]

not sure if this has been posted, but if it has my apologies. Damn this thread has grew. The Morning After and Jim Thomas on it..

[av]http://www.insidestlaudio.com/ITD_Audio/120114-2TMA.mp3[/av]

 

[fearsomefour]

View attachment 4309

I couple of quick thoughts....
Looking at that picture, damn Cook is big dude.
I don't look for political statement from athletes I follow anymore than I care what a politician may say about one of my teams.
To me, they look foolish.
But, I don't really care that much. So be it. Not a huge deal to me.
As a sort of aside....why is it always the WRs looking for attention? Whether it is a T.O. type of guy pulling a pen out to make a spectacle of himself or any number of other WR we can think of that need to make themselves the center of attention and put themselves before the team....again, this is not a big thing to me as a one time thing, but, again it is the receivers. Some sort of interesting psych going on the WR position.

 

[fearsomefour]

Freedom of speech only means that they can express their thoughts without being arrested or otherwise persecuted by the government. It does not make these sentiments appropriate to express in a work environment or make it true that Brown was attempting to surrender when he wasn't.

We pretty much have the freedom to say what we want....that does not mean there will not be consequences. The NFL decided (wisely) to stay clear of this one and issue no fine.

 

[RamFan503]

The NFL decided (wisely) to stay clear of this one and issue no fine.

Damned if they did - damned that they didn't. The proverbial no win situation. But who thinks the NFL isn't pissed about it?

 

[fearsomefour]

Damned if they did - damned that they didn't. The proverbial no win situation. But who thinks the NFL isn't pissed about it?

I think Goodell just punted on that one...."no comment".

 

[Stranger]

Damned if they did - damned that they didn't. The proverbial no win situation. But who thinks the NFL isn't pissed about it?

Just one more reason to screw us on the field of play.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Damned if they did - damned that they didn't. The proverbial no win situation. But who thinks the NFL isn't pissed about it?

Meh, probably, but it opens up a lot of potential issues. If they fine players for this, what's to stop them from fining former GSOT players whenever they mention funny business during the SB. A few have before, and you know there would be an uproar here if they did. They could use the same excuse though, protecting their image and staying out of controversy.

Although I believe, by the definition, that Wilson was lawful in his actions, I don't really have any issues with the players doing what they did. I think they're stupid if they think Brown was totally innocent, but I think they are okay if its more about the general issues we have as a whole.

At any rate, nobody gave a shit about Bailey putting his hands up when he put up over 100 yards in the first quarter, nobody will give a shit a month from now, the NFL knows this. Easier to just forget about it.

 

[Boffo97]

We pretty much have the freedom to say what we want....that does not mean there will not be consequences. The NFL decided (wisely) to stay clear of this one and issue no fine.

My point though was that the NFL deciding to stay clear of the issue (though I don't know if it was wise... a precedent has been established to allow more dragging political and/or racial controversy into the game without consequence) was what allowed the players to say what they wanted in the stadium and in uniform.

Constitutional freedom of speech really isn't part of the conversation here.

 

[HX76]

Quite strange coming into work this morning on the train and looking over people's shoulders whilst they read their newspapers and seeing a picture of the Rams. That really doesn't happen very often in the newspapers over here. Just a shame it wasn't an article waxing lyrical about the 52-0 win.

 

[Ramhusker]

This too will pass.

 

[theramsruleUK]

Quite strange coming into work this morning on the train and looking over people's shoulders whilst they read their newspapers and seeing a picture of the Rams. That really doesn't happen very often in the newspapers over here. Just a shame it wasn't an article waxing lyrical about the 52-0 win.

wasnt the sunday sport was it?

 

[badnews]

they simply supported the protesters who single handedly destroyed and dismantled their own community by burning and destroying local businesses.

Wrong.
There is a huge difference between the "protesters", who the WRs were supporting, and the "rioters" who are causing all the damage.

Why is it so hard for people to make this simple distinction?