Josh Jacobs Charged With Domestic Abuse

[Joemailman]

Back on topic:

According to the collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and NFLPA, a standard suspension for a domestic violence case is six games. However, suspensions can be longer depending on the severity of the case.

If Jacobs were to be suspended, any games he missed while on the commissioner’s exempt list would count toward the suspension. He’ll be at six games after the Packers face off against the Cowboys this Sunday night.

If the NFL doesn't have the tape they need to remove him from the exempt list if they wish to continue this "investigation". Otherwise they are effectively punishing him more severely than allowed because maybe they might find something bad. But when it comes to the small market community owned Packers the NFL has never been favorable.

I'll add this. To my knowledge the injuries sustained by the victim weren't egregious to my knowledge. No fractured bones, no concussion, no cuts or large egregious bruises. So the idea that the tape is going to show something like the Ray Rice haymaker isn't founded in any logic.

I believe she had a bump on the head but no concussion. The fact they charged him with a misdemeanor but not a felony would suggest this is not likely a worst case event.

[Joemailman]

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/50190063/packers-josh-jacobs-sues-block-release-records-video

GREEN BAY, Wis. -- Packers running back Josh Jacobs has filed a civil suit seeking a permanent injunction restricting access to records from his May 23 altercation with a woman at his home.

According to Brown County (Wis.) Circuit Court records, Jacobs filed the suit Wednesday -- one day after the Hobart/Lawrence Police Department announced it had approved the release of certain records with appropriate redactions but that a party or parties involved had appealed that decision.

The initial criminal report said there is surveillance video from Jacobs' garage that shows part of the altercation with the woman.

The filing said Jacobs is seeking a "permanent Injunction, protective order and order restricting access to records under Wis. Stat.19.356." That put on hold the release of any records and evidence in the case that had not been previously available.

According to the lawsuit, which was obtained by multiple media outlets, Jacobs argues that the woman involved in the altercation has requested "to protect her privacy, dignity, personal security, emotional well-being, and ability to participate safely in the criminal justice process." He argued that "redaction limited to names or faces would not adequately protect" the woman's identity and that advanced AI could be applied to surveillance video to identify her based on "her body shape and other indicia of her identity."

Jacobs also argues in the lawsuit that releasing the video "would reveal private details" of his garage's interior, including the "configuration, entrances, exits, doors, windows, storage areas, security arrangements, or other details that could be used to evaluate how the garage or residence might be entered."

He cites the increase in robberies of athletes' homes as a reason not to release the video.

"Public sports figures have been targeted for robbery and related property crimes. The public availability of Plaintiff's schedule or travel information increases the risk that persons could identify periods when Plaintiff is away from home and use released information concerning the residence, garage, access points, security arrangements, or property to target the property. Widespread public dissemination of those details would materially increase Plaintiff's vulnerability to theft, burglary, robbery, trespass, or other targeted criminal conduct," the lawsuit states.

ESPN filed a request for evidence under the Freedom of Information Act and was informed of the decision Tuesday.

Jacobs pleaded no contest Sept. 10 to charges of battery and criminal destruction of property. He was convicted of battery and fined $1,000 and agreed to a deferred judgment agreement on a charge of damage to property.

Two weeks later, a judge lifted a temporary seal of the records and turned the decision whether to release part or all of the records to the police department.

Tuesday's announcement that the police department determined it would release some records did not say whether the surveillance video was part of the documents it deemed available for public consumption.

The NFL is trying to get the video as part of its investigation.

Jacobs has not played this season because he is on the commissioner exempt list while the NFL completes its look into the matter. If Jacobs is suspended, time served on the exempt list would count toward the suspension.

[Tony Oday]

He should be playing this week.

[texaspackerbacker]

Am I reading this correctly? Jacobs is suing to PREVENT the video from being released? If so, how is that not a very bad thing from the Packers point of view and indeed for Jacobs himself.

[bobblehead]

Am I reading this correctly? Jacobs is suing to PREVENT the video from being released? If so, how is that not a very bad thing from the Packers point of view and indeed for Jacobs himself.

Why would he want it released when all accounts are it shows him shoving her to the ground. Its not a good look no matter how you slice it or dice it. She has also sued to stop its release which should be the end of it. But Goodell hates the team that is owned by fans. He hates the small market.

[Joemailman]

Jacobs will be removed from exempt list Monday. Suspension could still happen in the future.

Adam Schefter
@AdamSchefter

ESPN sources: Packers RB Josh Jacobs is being removed from the NFL’s Commissioner Exempt list on Monday. The investigation will remain open for the NFL so it reserves the right to add further discipline if and when warranted. Jacobs is expected to be eligible to play in Week 7.

[Vincenzo]

[QUOTE=Joemailman;n1669071]Jacobs will be removed from exempt list Monday. Suspension could still happen in the future.

Maybe the Packers will win 15 games this year after all.

We now have a definite upgrade from Lloyd to Josh Jacobs.

[NewsBruin]

Why would he want it released when all accounts are it shows him shoving her to the ground. Its not a good look no matter how you slice it or dice it. She has also sued to stop its release which should be the end of it. But Goodell hates the team that is owned by fans. He hates the small market.

I dunno. I think we're pretty safely above the midpoint in terms of revenue and fandom.

I think the only things the other owners hate (because Goodell is just their executive) is that the Packers never selling to another owner slows down the increase in teams' valuation --the league would never let a team sell for less than its previous price-- and that Green Bay's stock-ownership structure provides the most sunlight into any team's finances and the league's revenue-sharing setup.

Actually, those are darn good reasons for the other 31 to hate the Packers.

[Fritz]

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

[texaspackerbacker]

I don't know about behind the curtain hahahaha, but there must be something behind the scenes that isn't coming out. The NFL reserves the right to do more? I haven't heard of what bobblehead said, that the video shows him shoving her - which presumably would be pretty damning. She now is inexplicably suing - separately but for the same thing as Jacobs - to keep the video from being released? If both parties don't want it to be shown, it likely would stay not shown. Why the ex-gf is suing to keep it suppressed, seemingly against her own interests, is a bit of a mystery. I'm thinking that maybe a deal was made with her.

Anyway, this is about the best news we could have hoped for.

[pbmax]

The policy says it’s a baseline of a six game suspension. There is now a legal move to lock away the one piece of evidence they are waiting for.

They can’t hold out for much longer and not be sued to let him back in. So they are acquiescing. But they reserve to right to suspend and fine if the video comes out and it’s worse than the charges look now.

So his return and spot on the roster is dependent on the success of the case or the video not being more damning.

[pbmax]

The policy says it’s a baseline of a six game suspension. There is now a legal move to lock away the one piece of evidence they are waiting for.

They can’t hold out for much longer and not be sued to let him back in. So they are acquiescing. But they reserve to right to suspend and fine if the video comes out and it’s worse than the charges look now.

So his return and spot on the roster is dependent on the success of the case or the video not being more damning.

He’s basically still in limbo but being paid with suspension and fine over his head.

[call_me_ishmael]

I don't know about behind the curtain hahahaha, but there must be something behind the scenes that isn't coming out. The NFL reserves the right to do more? I haven't heard of what bobblehead said, that the video shows him shoving her - which presumably would be pretty damning. She now is inexplicably suing - separately but for the same thing as Jacobs - to keep the video from being released? If both parties don't want it to be shown, it likely would stay not shown. Why the ex-gf is suing to keep it suppressed, seemingly against her own interests, is a bit of a mystery. I'm thinking that maybe a deal was made with her.

Anyway, this is about the best news we could have hoped for.

Because she very likely got paid to do so?

[texaspackerbacker]

That's what I just said ...... or at least implied.

[pbmax]

Jeremy Fowler of ESPN reports that Jacobs has now been interviewed. The victim declined due to privacy concerns. https://x.com/JFowlerESPN/status/2111233042962407557

This makes it more likely that if the video gets held back from public release or it doesn't show more than is known, Jacobs will be OK. I suspect the League will, at a minimum, fine and suspend him for games missed if it becomes public, hence, why both parties are asking the video be withheld. Probably.

It does create a perverse incentive for evidence to be withheld from the public so the perpetrator can continue with work, but that's what the law allows. It was a change to public records laws that allowed the parties to ask police to hold back certain evidence, see Marsy's Law: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/mis...020/im_2020_04