(12-18-2015, 11:59 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That is a death threat because he clearly intended to murder multiple Steelers players.  He was going to decapitate them!  


Yet, the NFL did nothing about it. 

So Flowers manned up and retracted....did the steeler player do the same, or simply just delete his tweet?

(12-18-2015, 05:29 PM)Beaker Wrote: So Flowers manned up and retracted....did the steeler player do the same, or simply just delete his tweet?

Apologized in a Tweet over a previous Tweet =/= "manned up"

(12-18-2015, 11:59 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That is a death threat because he clearly intended to murder multiple Steelers players.  He was going to decapitate them!  


Yet, the NFL did nothing about it. 

They can't do anything unless they go back and also do something to Williams. They have set the bar with no action on the Williams tweet.

(12-18-2015, 11:59 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That is a death threat because he clearly intended to murder multiple Steelers players.  He was going to decapitate them!

Notorious for being a team of criminals, now the bengals are harboring muslim terrorists.

The sanctuary NFL franchise.

(12-18-2015, 05:29 PM)Beaker Wrote: So Flowers manned up and retracted....did the steeler player do the same, or simply just delete his tweet?

So your problem with Williams is now that he didn't apologize?

(12-18-2015, 08:26 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: They can't do anything unless they go back and also do something to Williams. They have set the bar with no action on the Williams tweet.

Can't?  I don't think you know what that word means.  But you are, inadvertently correct, they won't do anything because hot air on social media is exactly that.  Now someone clue sand in his crack Whitworth into this concept so we can move on.

(12-18-2015, 09:30 PM)Vlad Wrote: Notorious for being a team of criminals, now the bengals are harboring muslim terrorists.

The sanctuary NFL franchise.

Shitsburgh Stoolers....notorious for having local LEOs as their paid "security" to sweep up their messes before they go public.

(12-18-2015, 09:30 PM)Vlad Wrote: Notorious for being a team of criminals, now the bengals are harboring muslim terrorists.

The sanctuary NFL franchise.

This is crazy!!! Muslim terrorist really?


:crazy:

(12-18-2015, 11:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So your problem with Williams is now that he didn't apologize?


Can't?  I don't think you know what that word means.  But you are, inadvertently correct, they won't do anything because hot air on social media is exactly that.  Now someone clue sand in his crack Whitworth into this concept so we can move on.

Can't or won't equals the same result. The NFL's absence with the Williams tweet set up the future. They fine or discipline Flowers, then Flowers sues them and most likely wins big bucks. The tweet can be read a few different ways, but I think everyone agrees it was a threat. A threat is a threat so the two made by Williams and Flowers become the same and why I feel the NFL backed themselves into a corner. Eventually, the NFL will have to take a stand, but my guess is they will send a written reminder to all NFL players and coaches reminding them it won't be tolerated (in the future) so they can start fresh to top this crap. In my opinion, it needs to be stopped as no way threats to others should be tolerated over social media.

(12-18-2015, 11:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So your problem with Williams is now that he didn't apologize?

No, my problem with williams is that he is a fake tough little *****. All talk, no action. Had Burfict right in his grill pre-game and did nothing. Couldn't back up his talk.

(12-19-2015, 02:15 PM)Beaker Wrote: No, my problem with williams is that he is a fake tough little *****. All talk, no action. Had Burfict right in his grill pre-game and did nothing. Couldn't back up his talk.

You're right, that was the perfect moment for him to murder Burfict!

(12-19-2015, 11:18 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Can't or won't equals the same result. The NFL's absence with the Williams tweet set up the future. They fine or discipline Flowers, then Flowers sues them and most likely wins big bucks. The tweet can be read a few different ways, but I think everyone agrees it was a threat. A threat is a threat so the two made by Williams and Flowers become the same and why I feel the NFL backed themselves into a corner. Eventually, the NFL will have to take a stand, but my guess is they will send a written reminder to all NFL players and coaches reminding them it won't be tolerated (in the future) so they can start fresh to top this crap. In my opinion, it needs to be stopped as no way threats to others should be tolerated over social media.

I read this and come to the conclusion that you have no idea how civil litigation works or how the CBA applies to player discipline. 

(12-19-2015, 02:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I read this and come to the conclusion that you have no idea how civil litigation works or how the CBA applies to player discipline. 

Please give us the details internet bully.
I can't wait to be taught by a Sociopath.

(12-19-2015, 03:50 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Please give us the details internet bully.

LOL

Quote:I can't wait to be taught by a Sociopath.

You do know that's a screen name right?

Quote:Please show me my 40+ years in business running major companies was all for nothing.

Sadly, for you, I will waste my time and do exactly that.

While I am much more familiar with criminal law I can tell you that your ability to sue for discrimination, in this case for selective enforcement, is predicated on demonstrable malice.  I. e. the NFL has to be shown to have deliberately ignored Williams and targeted Flowers with intent to do so.  Additionally, the two situations in question need to be legally similar.  I will now explain to you why the two tweets, as argued by a lawyer, are not the same.  In Williams tweet the "threat" is stated via the use of slang, in this case "paint".  In Flowers case he uses plain English language such as "mass murder" and getting "necks".  The NFL lawyer could argue, correctly, that Williams' tweet does not imply a death threat as the meaning of the word "paint" as expressed by Williams cannot be determined.  The NFL and Williams could easily, and correctly, argue that Williams use of the word "paint", as slang, could mean a multitude of things hence it cannot, in a legal sense, be quantified.  Flowers' use of "mass murder" allows for no such ambiguity, or more correctly none at all.

Additionally, the CBA states that Goodell is the final arbiter of discipline.  The only reason Brady slimed away from his punishment was that the connections between him and the deflators were tenuous and not legally potent enough to justify his suspension.  In this case there is a direct and undeniable link between Flowers and his tweet.  Flowers hands are tied due to the contract that his own union agreed upon with the NFL.

(12-19-2015, 04:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: LOL




You do know that's a screen name right?


Sadly, for you, I will waste my time and do exactly that.

While I am much more familiar with criminal law I can tell you that your ability to sue for discrimination, in this case for selective enforcement, is predicated on demonstrable malice.  I. e. the NFL has to be shown to have deliberately ignored Williams and targeted Flowers with intent to do so.  Additionally, the two situations in question need to be legally similar.  I will now explain to you why the two tweets, as argued by a lawyer, are not the same.  In Williams tweet the "threat" is stated via the use of slang, in this case "paint".  In Flowers case he uses plain English language such as "mass murder" and getting "necks".  The NFL lawyer could argue, correctly, that Williams' tweet does not imply a death threat as the meaning of the word "paint" as expressed by Williams cannot be determined.  The NFL and Williams could easily, and correctly, argue that Williams use of the word "paint", as slang, could mean a multitude of things hence it cannot, in a legal sense, be quantified.  Flowers' use of "mass murder" allows for no such ambiguity, or more correctly none at all.

Additionally, the CBA states that Goodell is the final arbiter of discipline.  The only reason Brady slimed away from his punishment was that the connections between him and the deflators were tenuous and not legally potent enough to justify his suspension.  In this case there is a direct and undeniable link between Flowers and his tweet.  Flowers hands are tied due to the contract that his own union agreed upon with the NFL.

(12-21-2015, 12:00 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:

I am still waiting as the drivel you provided was subjective at best Sociapth

(12-21-2015, 12:14 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I am still waiting as the drivel you provided was subjective at best Sociapth

Seriously, just tuck your balls and run, you just did the internet equivalent.

(12-21-2015, 12:14 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I am still waiting as the drivel you provided was subjective at best Sociapth

Bumping the thread to show just how cowardly your tuck and run routine is.  C'mon business expert, debunk my statement.  You're the one who asked for it in the first place.

(12-22-2015, 05:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Bumping the thread to show just how cowardly your tuck and run routine is.  C'mon business expert, debunk my statement.  You're the one who asked for it in the first place.

I made a decision to quit dealing with a troll, an idiot and a guy who thinks he is tough using the internet and rep points as his weapon. I have moved on as you do act like a sociopath so at least your name depicts your behavior. Now carry and on and go troll someone who cares about a moron on a message board.

(12-23-2015, 11:40 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I made a decision to quit dealing with a troll, an idiot and a guy who thinks he is tough using the internet and rep points as his weapon. I have moved on as you do act like a sociopath so at least your name depicts your behavior. Now carry and on and go troll someone who cares about a moron on a message board.

C'mon Luvnit, you challenged me to explain why you were wrong, I did exactly that.  I didn't use any personal attacks or anything because I know you're very sensitive.  So, just man up and respond to the post made specifically because you requested it.

(12-19-2015, 04:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sadly, for you, I will waste my time and do exactly that.

While I am much more familiar with criminal law I can tell you that your ability to sue for discrimination, in this case for selective enforcement, is predicated on demonstrable malice.  I. e. the NFL has to be shown to have deliberately ignored Williams and targeted Flowers with intent to do so.  Additionally, the two situations in question need to be legally similar.  I will now explain to you why the two tweets, as argued by a lawyer, are not the same.  In Williams tweet the "threat" is stated via the use of slang, in this case "paint".  In Flowers case he uses plain English language such as "mass murder" and getting "necks".  The NFL lawyer could argue, correctly, that Williams' tweet does not imply a death threat as the meaning of the word "paint" as expressed by Williams cannot be determined.  The NFL and Williams could easily, and correctly, argue that Williams use of the word "paint", as slang, could mean a multitude of things hence it cannot, in a legal sense, be quantified.  Flowers' use of "mass murder" allows for no such ambiguity, or more correctly none at all.

Additionally, the CBA states that Goodell is the final arbiter of discipline.  The only reason Brady slimed away from his punishment was that the connections between him and the deflators were tenuous and not legally potent enough to justify his suspension.  In this case there is a direct and undeniable link between Flowers and his tweet.  Flowers hands are tied due to the contract that his own union agreed upon with the NFL.

C'mon, luvnit, there's not a single personal attack or insult in this entire post.  Why can't you be a man and respond to the points made in it?  You directly challenged me to make this post then slimmed away as fast as your stumps could carry you.