|
Nail Rat posted:I don't think so. I'm sure they don't like what he did either(the union) but letting the league suspend him a second time for the same incident sets a legal precedent the union would not want to set. I'm pretty sure they can reopen the case in light of new evidence and extend the suspension, thus not making it double jeopardy.
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 07:29 |
|
|
Dexo posted:Nope, any lawyer worth there salt would be able to make the argument that the NFL saw that video and thus it's not new evidence. Since there are enough conflicting reports to make it so. Also the fact that they have said what they were told lines up with the events of the video. Yeah, I was just going off of the assumption that they never saw the video. Obviously his lawyers would contest that, and it sure seems like they'd have a lot of grounds to base that on. But if they hadn't, then I think that gives them the right to reopen the case and not worry about double jeopardy.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2014 17:47
|
|