Kaepernick's Grievance

[hurtinbuckaroo]

If SCROTUS's threats suggested collusion, the league's refusal to require players to stand for the anthem puts a full spread of torpedoes into that "suggestion".

You have a good point, but the magnitude of how good it is is somewhat diminished by their coming to this conclusion only after Kaepernick's grievance. One thing to wonder is why did they change their mind.

When did the league change its mind? I must have missed that. Before the meeting, an NFL spokesman stated that players should stand, but are not required to. After the meeting, the league policy is identical.

Yesterday's meeting was scheduled months before the grievance was filed, and the discussion of anthem protests was added to the itinerary before Kaepernick filed the grievance. And the discussion of whether to change existing policy led to a decision not to change it.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

If 32 owners individually reach some devil's agreement with Trump, that's not collusion as defined by the labor agreement. If two or more of them reach an agreement together, for whatever reason, that IS collusion.

I didn't think it was necessary to point out that if owners are colluding, then they're colluding.

If they communicated with other during that process, it certainly is.

Anyway, that would be a point for the arbitrator to decide. Supposing that a quorum of teams conferred with Trump, and agreed to blackball Kap without any one team knowing about the others. Sounds like a stretch to me, since Trump would surely use other agreements as an argument.

Since Trump has such a big mouth, I'd try to involve him as much as possible.

I have no doubt that owners communicated about league policy covering behavior during the anthem. That's not relevant to why Kaepernick doesn't have a job, and it certainly isn't collusion.

IMO, based on ability, he should be employed, assuming his contract demands are reasonable. But once you filter out the teams that don't need a QB, can't afford a QB, or run an offense not suitable to this particular QB, the handful of teams that are left can convincingly argue that they won't hire him because they don't want to alienate the fans of THEIR team.

He needs a smoking gun. Circumstantial won't cut it.

 

[Horatio Parker]

If they communicated with other during that process, it certainly is.

Anyway, that would be a point for the arbitrator to decide. Supposing that a quorum of teams conferred with Trump, and agreed to blackball Kap without any one team knowing about the others. Sounds like a stretch to me, since Trump would surely use other agreements as an argument.

Since Trump has such a big mouth, I'd try to involve him as much as possible.

Ya, Trump has a history of admitting to crimes he's committed while people are investigating him for those crimes. If there's anything someone wants to keep secret, they'd be smart to include Trump as little as possible.

Ya'know? Anyone with half a brain would say no way as soon as Trump uttered the words "secret deal".

 

[Horatio Parker]

If they communicated with other during that process, it certainly is.

Anyway, that would be a point for the arbitrator to decide. Supposing that a quorum of teams conferred with Trump, and agreed to blackball Kap without any one team knowing about the others. Sounds like a stretch to me, since Trump would surely use other agreements as an argument.

Since Trump has such a big mouth, I'd try to involve him as much as possible.

I have no doubt that owners communicated about league policy covering behavior during the anthem. That's not relevant to why Kaepernick doesn't have a job, and it certainly isn't collusion.

IMO, based on ability, he should be employed, assuming his contract demands are reasonable. But once you filter out the teams that don't need a QB, can't afford a QB, or run an offense not suitable to this particular QB, the handful of teams that are left can convincingly argue that they won't hire him because they don't want to alienate the fans of THEIR team.

He needs a smoking gun. Circumstantial won't cut it.

Circumstantial gets him the hearing. To prevail, he needs a preponderance of evidence. And, again refusal to cooperate is grounds to rule against the NFL.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

I have no doubt that owners communicated about league policy covering behavior during the anthem. That's not relevant to why Kaepernick doesn't have a job, and it certainly isn't collusion.

IMO, based on ability, he should be employed, assuming his contract demands are reasonable. But once you filter out the teams that don't need a QB, can't afford a QB, or run an offense not suitable to this particular QB, the handful of teams that are left can convincingly argue that they won't hire him because they don't want to alienate the fans of THEIR team.

He needs a smoking gun. Circumstantial won't cut it.

Circumstantial gets him the hearing. To prevail, he needs a preponderance of evidence. And, again refusal to cooperate is grounds to rule against the NFL.

Please provide a link to the requirement for evidence of any kind in order to be granted a hearing. This isn't a court case, where a judge can simply decide not to hear the arguments.

 

[dismal]

Circumstantial gets him the hearing. To prevail, he needs a preponderance of evidence. And, again refusal to cooperate is grounds to rule against the NFL.

Please provide a link to the requirement for evidence of any kind in order to be granted a hearing. This isn't a court case, where a judge can simply decide not to hear the arguments.

It's a dispute over a private contract. So it falls under the category "anybody can sue anybody for anything".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

analysis from MAR. 29, 2017, fivethirtyeight.com ends in conclusion:

It is impossible to prove the precise mix of factors that have gone into Kaepernick’s free agency to this point. The market remains paralyzed by Romo, and teams are run by fallible owners and executives who may simply disagree on Kaepernick’s football value. But given what we know about how the quarterback market has worked historically, and about Kaepernick’s value as a player, the commentariat is right to be suspicious. If Kaepernick begins the season without a team, history says it’s unlikely to be for football reasons. We aren’t there yet, but every day further into free agency makes that scenario harder to ignore.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/yes-its-strange-that-colin-kaepernick-doesnt-have-a-deal-yet/

See link for full analysis.

So? It's pretty obvious that he's not being hired for non-football reasons. There's nothing illegal in that. The question is whether each owner is concluding they don't want someone who embarrassed the boss like that, or if there's an agreement amongst owners not to hire him.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Circumstantial gets him the hearing. To prevail, he needs a preponderance of evidence. And, again refusal to cooperate is grounds to rule against the NFL.

Please provide a link to the requirement for evidence of any kind in order to be granted a hearing. This isn't a court case, where a judge can simply decide not to hear the arguments.

I never said there was a requirement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Please provide a link to the requirement for evidence of any kind in order to be granted a hearing. This isn't a court case, where a judge can simply decide not to hear the arguments.

I never said there was a requirement.

You said:

"Circumstantial gets him the hearing."

This is patently false. Filing gets him the hearing.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

Each bit of circumstantial evidence does not individually indirectly prove the case but instead generally together with other facts they demonstrate a strong likelihood for the case.

Therefore, owners all agreeing with Trump can be circumstantial evidence* used in combination with other evidence to support a case for collusion in the same way that a fingerprint of a suspect at a crime scene can be circumstantial evidence used in combination with other evidence to support a case for the suspect having committed the crime.

* ETA: I will expand on why here. At least two owners/NFL employees/agents agreeing is a necessary but not sufficient part of a collusion narrative.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I never said there was a requirement.

You said:

"Circumstantial gets him the hearing."

This is patently false. Filing gets him the hearing.

Pedant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dismal]

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

Each bit of circumstantial evidence does not individually indirectly prove the case but instead generally together with other facts they demonstrate a strong likelihood for the case.

Therefore, owners all agreeing with Trump can be circumstantial evidence* used in combination with other evidence to support a case for collusion in the same way that a fingerprint of a suspect at a crime scene can be circumstantial evidence used in combination with other evidence to support a case for the suspect having committed the crime.

* ETA: I will expand on why here. At least two owners/NFL employees/agents agreeing is a necessary but not sufficient part of a collusion narrative.

No circumstantial evidence is

A) evidence (e.g., you finger print was found on the victims car.)
B) connected to the crime by inference ( the victim's body was found in the car)

You seem to be confusing "unfounded wild ass speculation I want to believe" with "circumstantial evidence".

- - - Updated - - -

You said:

"Circumstantial gets him the hearing."

This is patently false. Filing gets him the hearing.

Pedant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If it wasn't important you shouldn't have said it. Incorrectly.

 

[bilby]

Pretty much all evidence is circumstantial; the only other kinds are 'eyewitness', which is rated highly by courts, but is generally far less reliable than circumstantial evidence; and 'hearsay', which is recognised by most courts as valueless.

Circumstantial evidence is the best kind of evidence there is. Particularly once it has been thoroughly tested.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Pretty much all evidence is circumstantial; the only other kinds are 'eyewitness', which is rated highly by courts, but is generally far less reliable than circumstantial evidence; and 'hearsay', which is recognised by most courts as valueless.

Circumstantial evidence is the best kind of evidence there is. Particularly once it has been thoroughly tested.

And what evidence would be tested here? All the evidence is, Kaepernick was an okay QB some other team should have tried to play him. What would say if they found an emailed dated from Goodell that said, "Any team hiring Kaepernick will lose a draft pick"

 

[Horatio Parker]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

Each bit of circumstantial evidence does not individually indirectly prove the case but instead generally together with other facts they demonstrate a strong likelihood for the case.

Therefore, owners all agreeing with Trump can be circumstantial evidence* used in combination with other evidence to support a case for collusion in the same way that a fingerprint of a suspect at a crime scene can be circumstantial evidence used in combination with other evidence to support a case for the suspect having committed the crime.

* ETA: I will expand on why here. At least two owners/NFL employees/agents agreeing is a necessary but not sufficient part of a collusion narrative.

No circumstantial evidence is

A) evidence (e.g., you finger print was found on the victims car.)
B) connected to the crime by inference ( the victim's body was found in the car)

You seem to be confusing "unfounded wild ass speculation I want to believe" with "circumstantial evidence".

- - - Updated - - -

You said:

"Circumstantial gets him the hearing."

This is patently false. Filing gets him the hearing.

Pedant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If it wasn't important you shouldn't have said it. Incorrectly.

Perhaps not, if I had the slightest clue what you're talking about.

 

[bilby]

Pretty much all evidence is circumstantial; the only other kinds are 'eyewitness', which is rated highly by courts, but is generally far less reliable than circumstantial evidence; and 'hearsay', which is recognised by most courts as valueless.

Circumstantial evidence is the best kind of evidence there is. Particularly once it has been thoroughly tested.

And what evidence would be tested here? All the evidence is, Kaepernick was an okay QB some other team should have tried to play him. What would say if they found an emailed dated from Goodell that said, "Any team hiring Kaepernick will lose a draft pick"

Sorry, you seem to have mistaken me for someone who gives a shit.

I provided some definitions, because there was debate about those definitions. I wasn't making any kind of a point about the case in question, which I know fuck-all about, and care about perhaps slightly less.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And what evidence would be tested here? All the evidence is, Kaepernick was an okay QB some other team should have tried to play him. What would say if they found an emailed dated from Goodell that said, "Any team hiring Kaepernick will lose a draft pick"

Sorry, you seem to have mistaken me for someone who gives a shit.

I provided some definitions, because there was debate about those definitions. I wasn't making any kind of a point about the case in question, which I know fuck-all about, and care about perhaps slightly less.

You have direct evidence and you have circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence in this case would consist of the email, a taped conversation, a witness saying they worked with another team to collude, or even a witness saying that heard the conversation of the multiple parties.

Circumstantial evidence is inference and in this case there can be multiple explanations for what happened and needs more than just maybe.

 

[bilby]

Sorry, you seem to have mistaken me for someone who gives a shit.

I provided some definitions, because there was debate about those definitions. I wasn't making any kind of a point about the case in question, which I know fuck-all about, and care about perhaps slightly less.

You have direct evidence and you have circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence in this case would consist of the email, a taped conversation, a witness saying they worked with another team to collude, or even a witness saying that heard the conversation of the multiple parties.

Nope, the first two of those would be circumstantial evidence. The other two are witness evidence - the second of which is hearsay.

Circumstantial evidence is inference and in this case there can be multiple explanations for what happened and needs more than just maybe.

No, Circumstantial evidence is all evidence other than witness evidence, which can be divided into eyewitness evidence and hearsay.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

Each bit of circumstantial evidence does not individually indirectly prove the case but instead generally together with other facts they demonstrate a strong likelihood for the case.

Therefore, owners all agreeing with Trump can be circumstantial evidence* used in combination with other evidence to support a case for collusion in the same way that a fingerprint of a suspect at a crime scene can be circumstantial evidence used in combination with other evidence to support a case for the suspect having committed the crime.

* ETA: I will expand on why here. At least two owners/NFL employees/agents agreeing is a necessary but not sufficient part of a collusion narrative.

No circumstantial evidence is

A) evidence (e.g., you finger print was found on the victims car.)
B) connected to the crime by inference ( the victim's body was found in the car)

You seem to be confusing "unfounded wild ass speculation I want to believe" with "circumstantial evidence".

Here is an example of circumstantial evidence:

Circumstantial evidence is evidence of facts from which inferences or can be drawn.

For example, in an assault case where the crime took place on O'Connell Street at 6.15pm, you may give evidence that you saw the accused walking down O'Connell Street at 6pm. In that situation, you are giving circumstantial evidence to the court.

Inferences or conclusions may be drawn from the fact that the accused was on O'Connell Street at 6pm, but you have not given evidence as to the actual fact at issue in the case - whether the accused attacked a person.

In a case of a theft, examples of circumstantial evidence include:

• Evidence of the defendant's fingerprints at the scene of the crime
• The fact that the defendant was found with a large amount of money without being able to give any reason

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/evidence/circumstantial_evidence.html

The analogy to this civil case would be:

• Trump advocated firing players who don't stand.
• One NFL owner said to others and the NFL they ought to agree with Trump [or nearly so through implication].
• There is a statistical anomaly of Kaepernick not being hired for which there is not another plausible explanation. (this hasn't been proved but it's in the grievance).

- - - Updated - - -

No, I am asserting there is NO EVIDENCE of collusion provided at this point. You don't seem to be cable of rebutting this with ANY evidence.

You don't seem capable of accepting any bit of circumstantial evidence that supports an emerging narrative, i.e. you can't see the trees because of the forest--the opposite of what is often said. So, what is the minimum amount of circumstantial evidence you would call evidence that fits in a narrative that Kaepernick's legal team is alleging? If you can't answer this question genuinely and correctly, I will put you on ignore.

dismal, I am still waiting for you to answer the question. "So, what is the minimum amount of circumstantial evidence you would call evidence that fits in a narrative that Kaepernick's legal team is alleging?"

 

[dismal]

The analogy to this civil case would be:

• Trump advocated firing players who don't stand.
• One NFL owner said to others and the NFL they ought to agree with Trump [or nearly so through implication].
• There is a statistical anomaly of Kaepernick not being hired for which there is not another plausible explanation. (this hasn't been proved but it's in the grievance).

How does it follow from these that the owners colluded not to sign Kaepernick?

dismal, I am still waiting for you to answer the question. "So, what is the minimum amount of circumstantial evidence you would call evidence that fits in a narrative that Kaepernick's legal team is alleging?"

Somewhere above "none". Thus there is not enough yet.

You are the one who has chosen to drone on about "circumstantial evidence". I'll accept any evidence. the owners colluded not to sign Kaepernick.