The 2015 " I just can't stay out of jail " Thread .

[woodbuck27]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...s-and-comments

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...olts/21770811/

Indianapolis Colts LB Josh McNary Charged with Rape:

Latest Details and Comments

By: Matt Fitzgerald , Featured Columnist

Jan. 14, 2015


" Indianapolis Colts linebacker Josh McNary was charged Wednesday with one count of rape, one count of battery resulting in bodily injury and one count of criminal confinement.

FOX59's Greg Margason reported the news, noting the incident being investigated transpired "on or around December 1." Superior Court Judge Sheila Carlisle has signed a warrant for McNary's arrest. "

[woodbuck27]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...on-paid-leave/

Colts ask NFL to put McNary on paid leave

Posted by Mike Florio on January 15, 2015, 10:20 AM EST

[mraynrand]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...on-paid-leave/

Colts ask NFL to put McNary on paid leave

Posted by Mike Florio on January 15, 2015, 10:20 AM EST

This is the end of the road of the very bad precedent in the wake of the Peterman example. It is effectively a presumption of guilt, which is a terrible thing for any justice system, particularly ours.

It also presents an excellent way of removing an opponents' player(s) from a critical game. Find someone to accuse a star player of rape (find someone in Tacoma to say Rodgers assaulted her for example) and the NFL must put him on paid leave until it is sorted out. No one would do that you say, and I say: just wait.

[pbmax]

This is the end of the road of the very bad precedent in the wake of the Peterman example. It is effectively a presumption of guilt, which is a terrible thing for any justice system, particularly ours.

It also presents an excellent way of removing an opponents' player(s) from a critical game. Find someone to accuse a star player of rape (find someone in Tacoma to say Rodgers assaulted her for example) and the NFL must put him on paid leave until it is sorted out. No one would do that you say, and I say: just wait.

I agree completely, though an arrest is often more damning than an accusation.

Mueller in his report said they shouldn't wait for the criminal justice system to finish, which makes sense. Not guilty is often not a synonym for innocent. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be an investigation first.

[MadScientist]

This is the end of the road of the very bad precedent in the wake of the Peterman example. It is effectively a presumption of guilt, which is a terrible thing for any justice system, particularly ours.

It also presents an excellent way of removing an opponents' player(s) from a critical game. Find someone to accuse a star player of rape (find someone in Tacoma to say Rodgers assaulted her for example) and the NFL must put him on paid leave until it is sorted out. No one would do that you say, and I say: just wait.

I agree completely, though an arrest is often more damning than an accusation.

Mueller in his report said they shouldn't wait for the criminal justice system to finish, which makes sense. Not guilty is often not a synonym for innocent. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be an investigation first.

The league requires that formal charges be brought against the player before putting him on the exempt list. In this case it took 6 weeks for that to happen. There was quite a bit of investigation done, with evidence that corroborated the woman's claim. Maybe a woman could go all 'Gone Girl' on a player, and make a public case that looked sensational and push for fast action, but that would take a good bit of planning and preparation to pull off.

[mraynrand]

The league requires that formal charges be brought against the player before putting him on the exempt list. In this case it took 6 weeks for that to happen. There was quite a bit of investigation done, with evidence that corroborated the woman's claim. Maybe a woman could go all 'Gone Girl' on a player, and make a public case that looked sensational and push for fast action, but that would take a good bit of planning and preparation to pull off.

a lot of fans buy tickets in advance.

[mraynrand]

the other good thing, that should make everyone feel assured that the process is working well, is that prosecutors these days never file charges unless they have iron-clad cases. They never try to increase conviction rates by inducing people to accept pleas.

[MadScientist]

a lot of fans buy tickets in advance.

What does that have to do with anything? The preparation I was referring to would be along the lines of a woman doing things to herself that would make it look like she was raped and then finding and consensually fucking the target player to complete the evidence for the police. A fake accusation has to have some well-faked supporting evidence or it won't go anywhere.

[pbmax]

The league requires that formal charges be brought against the player before putting him on the exempt list. In this case it took 6 weeks for that to happen. There was quite a bit of investigation done, with evidence that corroborated the woman's claim. Maybe a woman could go all 'Gone Girl' on a player, and make a public case that looked sensational and push for fast action, but that would take a good bit of planning and preparation to pull off.

Ah, I was unaware this had been percolating. Thought it was breaking news.

[vince]

This is the end of the road of the very bad precedent in the wake of the Peterman example. It is effectively a presumption of guilt, which is a terrible thing for any justice system, particularly ours.

I'm not following this... Are you saying that a paid suspension by the NFL taints a jury when the justice system takes the case to court?

[mraynrand]

I'm not following this... Are you saying that a paid suspension by the NFL taints a jury when the justice system takes the case to court?

not necessarily, but I suppose it could. No, I was just making the point that it's a bad idea generally to suspend a guy before conviction. Wrong indictments are made all the time. So what does the player get if the indictment is wrong? Do they get to replay the game?

[vince]

not necessarily, but I suppose it could. No, I was just making the point that it's a bad idea generally to suspend a guy before conviction. Wrong indictments are made all the time. So what does the player get if the indictment is wrong? Do they get to replay the game?

The only justice in business other than what's bound by the law is colored green. The NFL is obligated to fulfill their contract with the player, which is why they're paying him, but if his presence on the field is bad for the brand, I think their decision is an easy one. Cops who are under investigation are given paid leave. Doctors get their license suspended pending investigations. If the player is ultimately convicted, they'll stop paying him too but not before. If it's a bogus indictment then perhaps the player has recourse against his accusers or the state/fed but the NFL is an innocent victim here and it needs to minimize its damages.

It's a bad situation for both the player and the league. The league needs to do what it can to protect itself, and the player needs to focus on keeping his ass out of jail. Neither of those needs suggest the player should be showcased before hundreds of millions of people.