SBorBust

Myles Garrett Assault Needs Its Own Thread

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

You were taught and told to hate? :huh: Who taught you that?

I definitely wasn't taught (or told) to 'hate' anyone.

I should have put more thought into that. I grew up in a small country town where hateful words were used often. When I say I learned it , it was from others , and yes living in Milan Michigan I was even told to hate. I never hated anyone for their race but I hope you understand what I'm saying. Some people tried to have negative influences on the young 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, giggity_goo said:

I should have put more thought into that. I grew up in a small country town where hateful words were used often. When I say I learned it , it was from others , and yes living in Milan Michigan I was even told to hate. I never hated anyone for their race but I hope you understand what I'm saying. Some people tried to have negative influences on the young 

As said earlier, that's how it went for me too bro. and how it  goes for most people. we gotcha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though Myles Garrett started the whole event without any provocation from a Steelers player the biggest concern over all this has been kitchens lack of leadership and discipline. So how does he prove he’s totally in control, he wears a Pittsburgh started it shirt. The guy proves everyone’s point he’s not mature enough to handle the football team

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of these are from PFT today:

 

Mike Tomlin supports Mason Rudolph, doubts Myles Garrett’s claim

Quote

Steelers coach Mike Tomlin is strongly supporting quarterback Mason Rudolph after Browns defensive end Myles Garrett again accused Rudolph of calling him the N-word on the field.

The Steelers released a statement from Tomlin today backing Rudolph and casting doubt on Garrett’s claims.

"I support Mason Rudolph not only because I know him, but also because I was on that field immediately following the altercation with Myles Garrett, and subsequently after the game,” Tomlin said. "I interacted with a lot of people in the Cleveland Browns organization — players and coaches. If Mason said what Myles claimed, it would have come out during the many interactions I had with those in the Browns’ organization. In my conversations, I had a lot of expressions of sorrow for what transpired. I received no indication of anything racial or anything of that nature in those interactions.”

Tomlin doesn’t come right out and accuse Garrett of lying, but he absolutely believes Rudolph is telling the truth when he says he did not say anything racist before Garrett attacked him.

 

Mason Rudolph: Myles Garrett’s claim is false, disgusting and reckless

Quote

Shortly after Steelers coach Mike Tomlin released a statement supporting quarterback Mason Rudolph against Myles Garrett‘s claim that Rudolph called him the N-word, Rudolph made an even stronger statement.

Rudolph quote tweeted Garrett’s interview with ESPN in which he reiterated the claim, and Rudolph blasted Garrett as a liar.

"1000% False,” Rudolph wrote. "Bold-Faced Lie. I did not, have not, and would not utter a racial-slur. This is a disgusting and reckless attempt to assassinate my character.”

The NFL reinstated Garrett this week following his six-game suspension for tearing Rudolph’s helmet off and bashing Rudolph over the head with it. Garrett has accused Rudolph of using the N-word, something that the NFL said it could not confirm after listening to audio from the game.

 

Mason Rudolph’s lawyer strongly hints that Myles Garrett will be sued

Quote

In a world filled with #fakenews and social-media rumor mongering, it’s still a no-no to tell lies about someone in a manner that harms their reputation.

For that reason, Browns defensive end Myles Garrett may end up on the wrong side of the "v” in a lawsuit filed by Steelers quarterback Mason Rudolph.

Rudolph’s agents and lawyer, Timothy Younger, has published a statement on Twitter that makes clear the possibility that Rudolph will be suing Garrett for defamation of character, based on the allegation that Rudolph used a racial slur before Garrett attacked Rudolph with his own helmet.

"Mr. Garrett maliciously uses this false allegation to coax sympathy, hoping to be excused for what clearly is inexcusable behavior,” Younger writes. "Despite other players and the referee being in the immediate vicinity, there are zero corroborating witnesses — as confirmed by the NFL. Although Mr. Rudolph had hoped to move forward, it is Mr. Garrett who has decided to utter this defamatory statement — in California. He is now exposed to legal liability.”

The reference to California isn’t gratuitous or accidental. The civil courts in California are regarded as being more favorable to the rights of those who make claims, both as to the juries who resolve the cases, the trial judges who hear them, and the appeals courts that craft the applicable legal principles.

Younger’s statement also mentions that Garrett’s attack on Rudolph constitutes battery. (Not assault.) A lawsuit could, in theory, include a battery claim, which would guarantee that the same jury that hears about the alleged racial slur will see the striking of Rudolph on the head with his own helmet, repeatedly. Which will tend to inflate the eventual verdict.

One thing for Younger to consider will be whether suing Garrett in civil court for battery (or assault) would give Garrett’s lawyers a basis for pulling the case into the broad reach of the NFL/NFLPA labor deal, which possibly prohibits players from suing each other for things that happen on the gridiron, forcing them instead to submit any grievances through a non-judicial process that would involve no judge, no jury, no California.

Garrett will have no such luck when it comes to a statement made in the offseason, far away from any football function or facility. He definitely is exposed to legal liability for what he said about Rudolph, unless Garrett can prove that what he said is true.

Of course, because Rudolph is a public figure, he’ll need to prove that Garrett acted with actual malice. And it will take more than Younger using the term "maliciously” in his statement. Under the law, "actual malice” arises in the defamation context when the person utter a false statement with actual knowledge that the statement is false or with reckless disregard to whether or not the statement is true or false.

The argument would (or at least could) be that Garrett made the public claim that Rudolph uttered a racial slur knowing that Rudolph previously had denied it and knowing that the NFL, which has microphones blanketing the field, had no evidence of it. Even if Garrett subjectively believes he heard it, at some point he needs to consider the broader evidence and ask himself whether he simply believes he heard something that wasn’t said.

Of course, it’s too late for that kind of backtracking now. Both sides are locked in to their stories, and this one ultimately could be decided, two or three years from now, by a group of people who will see the video of the battery (assault), hear the witnesses tell their stories about racial slurs that were or weren’t uttered, and decide whether Garrett violated Rudolph’s rights, as created and developed by the State of California.

 

NFL reiterates it has no evidence of Mason Rudolph racial slur

Quote

Just when the NFL thought it was out of the Myles Garrett business, it could be getting pulled back in.

With Garrett reiterating only one day after his reinstatement that Steelers quarterback Mason Rudolph uttered a racial slur seconds before Garrett removed Rudolph’s helmet and whacked him over the head with it and with Rudolph now potentially suing Garrett for defamation and battery, the league may find itself in receipt of a subpoena for any and all evidence demonstrating whether or not Rudolph said what Garrett claims Rudolph said. And the NFL wants to remind everyone involved that it has nothing useful, at least not in the way of recordings.

"As we said at the time the allegation was made, we looked into the matter and found no such evidence,” NFL V.P. of communications Brian McCarthy informed PFT via email after the story regarding a potential lawsuit was posted.

That’s not entirely good news for Rudolph, because the league’s position isn’t that it determined Rudolph didn’t use a slur. The league’s position is that, despite the presence of microphones, there are no recordings of any audio they may have captured. (As noted in November, the league could have launched a full-blown internal investigation into the matter, grilling any and all relevant witnesses.)

"There was no sound recorded from the field during that game,” McCarthy added. "As with every game, there were microphones on the center or interior linemen that help amplify the ambient sound as the quarterbacks were calling signals at the line of scrimmage. But they do not record sound. Microphones are opened from the break of the huddle (or when the center places his hand on the ball in a no-huddle offense) through the snap of the ball.”

In other words, the NFL’s evidence will neither prove that Rudolph used a slur nor rule it out. Which means that, if litigation is going to be pursued, the trial could become a Seinfeld-finale parade of witnesses, with (by all appearances) Garrett saying he heard a slur and every other witness saying that he didn’t.

 

NFL investigated Myles Garrett’s claim that a racial slur was used by Mason Rudolph

Quote

In an earlier item regarding the absence of recorded audio evidence confirming or debunking Browns defensive end Myles Garrett‘s claim that Steelers quarterback Mason Rudolph uttered a racial slur just before Garrett removed Rudolph’s helmet and whacked him over the head with it, it was mentioned that the league could have separately investigated the situation.

As it turns out, the league did.

"We checked with the officiating crew, including the ref who was on top of the play and the ensuing aftermath,” NFL V.P. of communications Brian McCarthy told PFT via email. "No player on either team came forward to say they heard him say it on the field. There was also no indication of any players saying they heard him say it in their postgame comments.”

Of course, Garrett said that he heard it. And Rudolph has denied saying it. The league, which has resolved multiple factual disputes like this within the context of the Personal Conduct Policy, has skilled interrogators who know how to ask probing questions — and who know how to assess the credibility of those being questioned. The league could have met with Garrett and with Rudolph, in an effort to resolve which man is telling the more believable story.

That will still happen, if Rudolph sues Garrett. But the league won’t be controlling the process; it will be driven by Rudolph’s and Garrett’s lawyers and presented to a judge and a jury, if Rudolph files a defamation lawsuit.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot all about that incident

Don't you need proof of some type of loss for defamation suits to work though? I don't think anyone believed Myles story that Rudolph used the n word

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, mike030270 said:

I forgot all about that incident

Don't you need proof of some type of loss for defamation suits to work though? I don't think anyone believed Myles story that Rudolph used the n word

In this case, I think just the accusation, if proven to be false, is enough to show 'some type of loss'. A white man being accused of calling a black man a 'N' in a profession where the majority of his 'co-workers' are black, is a really big deal. Both if it's true and maybe even more so if it's false. That kind of false accusation would destroy his ability to be the leader of a football team in the locker room.

Here's what's needed in California (where the suit would be filed, apparently):

Quote

https://www.shouselaw.com/personal-injury/defamation.html

California’s "defamation” (libel and slander) laws

To prove defamation in California, you must establish four elements:

  1. That someone made a false statement of purported "fact” about you:
  2. That the statement was made (“published”) to a third party;
  3. That the person who made the statement did so negligently, recklessly or intentionally; and,
  4. That as a result of the statement, your reputation was damaged.

California law recognizes two types of defamation: libel and slander. The main difference is whether a statement was made verbally (slander) or in writing (libel).

There's more on that webpage, but I figured that was enough, but you can go there if you want to read more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

In this case, I think just the accusation, if proven to be false, is enough to show 'some type of loss'. A white man being accused of calling a black man a 'N' in a profession where the majority of his 'co-workers' are black, is a really big deal. Both if it's true and maybe even more so if it's false. That kind of false accusation would destroy his ability to be the leader of a football team in the locker room.

Here's what's needed in California (where the suit would be filed, apparently):

There's more on that webpage, but I figured that was enough, but you can go there if you want to read more.

True but black teammates on both sides said they didn't hear it and don't believe he said it. It just doesn't seem like a loss since no one believed it. If he was benched or cut by the Steelers then I could see a defamation lawsuit working

There is this part on that page that will work with Rudolph

Quote

A public figure, however, must prove affirmatively that a statement was false. He or she must also prove "actual malice.” This means that the defendant made the defamatory statement either with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth.

Garrett was clearly trying to make an excuse for his violent act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With 20 other players on the field, the refs, whoever was mic'd up, the camera's and the people standing along the back of the endzone, if something like that was said someone, or something would have heard it.

He is FOS.  And should be banned from the league if it can be proven it was never said.

NOW. IF something comes out that proves it WAS said, then Rudolph can be shown the door.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mike030270 said:

True but black teammates on both sides said they didn't hear it and don't believe he said it. It just doesn't seem like a loss since no one believed it. If he was benched or cut by the Steelers then I could see a defamation lawsuit working

There is this part on that page that will work with Rudolph

Garrett was clearly trying to make an excuse for his violent act.

His current teammates might not buy into it, because they know him and those on the field didn't hear anything. But there can always be the grain of doubt for some that will think that just because they didn't hear it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. And even if 100% of his teammates believe him, what about his next team? What about potential endorsements that he wouldn't get because now that 'stink' of racism has been thrown on him.

It's like the accusation of rape, in terms of public opinion, it doesn't matter if an accused man actually did it. The accusation alone puts it on the accused, even if he didn't do it.

All of that aside though, if anyone believes the accusation (fan, player or disinterested third party), there's damage to his reputation and if the claim is 100% false, then he was illegally defamed.

Of course, if he actually did say it, then he has no leg to stand on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike Tomlin "hacked off” by ESPN’s handling of Myles Garrett interview

Quote

Steelers head coach Mike Tomlin released a statement over the weekend in response to Browns defensive end Myles Garrett‘s allegation during an interview with Mina Kimes of ESPN that Steelers quarterback Mason Rudolph used the N-word during their altercation at the end of a game last November.

In that statement, Tomlin said he had "received no indication of anything racial or anything of that nature in those interactions” and he repeated that during an appearance on ESPN Monday. Tomlin told Stephen A. Smith that he thought that it was best for everyone to "shut up and move on,” but he chose to take a different path because he was "hacked off” about the way ESPN handled the Garrett interview.

Tomlin said he thought a panel discussion following the interview presented it as a "he-said, he-said” situation without referencing the NFL’s investigation into Garrett’s allegation coming back with no evidence supporting the claim. Tomlin felt that the "way it was presented wasn’t fair to Mason Rudolph.”

"These accusations are serious. Not only in terms of Mason Rudolph’s character but his professional pursuits . . . It’s been a lot of negativity around Mason Rudolph. He got fined $50,000 for essentially getting beat up. His reputation was tarnished for the allegations,” Tomlin said.

Smith asked Tomlin about the depth of the investigation and Tomlin said he believed it was a thorough one because of how the league has handled other incidents. He also said no one from the Steelers would "cover up” the use of a racial slur.

Tomlin said he didn’t know what other steps Rudolph will take when asked about a lawsuit, but wouldn’t blame him for aggressively defending his reputation in the face of Garrett’s allegation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2020 at 8:43 PM, VaBeach_Eagle said:

In this case, I think just the accusation, if proven to be false, is enough to show 'some type of loss'. A white man being accused of calling a black man a 'N' in a profession where the majority of his 'co-workers' are black, is a really big deal. Both if it's true and maybe even more so if it's false. That kind of false accusation would destroy his ability to be the leader of a football team in the locker room.

Here's what's needed in California (where the suit would be filed, apparently):

There's more on that webpage, but I figured that was enough, but you can go there if you want to read more.

Number 3 is hard to prove.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

Number 3 is hard to prove.

Not really.

On ‎2‎/‎16‎/‎2020 at 8:43 PM, VaBeach_Eagle said:

3. That the person who made the statement did so negligently, recklessly or intentionally; and,

How could it be claimed or even believed that Garrett made the statement accidentally? It was 100% intentional. He's made the statement multiple times. So its impossible that it wasn't intentional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

Not really.

How could it be claimed or even believed that Garrett made the statement accidentally? It was 100% intentional. He's made the statement multiple times. So its impossible that it wasn't intentional.

It doesn't have to be. Garrett could claim he heard it, and there'd be no way to prove that he didn't actually believe he heard it. What needs to be proven as "intentional" was that he intentionally made a false statement. Not that merely making the statement was intentional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

It doesn't have to be. Garrett could claim he heard it, and there'd be no way to prove that he didn't actually believe he heard it. What needs to be proven as "intentional" was that he intentionally made a false statement. Not that the merely making the statement was intentional.

That would be #1 then, not #3. He made the statement intentionally. Proving #1, that it was false, would be the harder one to prove. The only way to prove that he couldn't have heard it would be the audio and video. If there's audio/video proof that the statement was never made, then he couldn't have heard it, whether he thought he did or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

If there's audio/video proof that the statement was never made, then he couldn't have heard it, whether he thought he did or not.

It doesn't work that way. People "hear" things all the time that they simply misheard or their brains made up in the heat of the moment in the midst of a very loud and tense situation. Getting audio and proving that it wasn't said (or simply that it wasn't picked up by the audio recording equipment) still doesn't prove that Garrett didn't at least think that he heard it and that he knew he didn't and made the statement anyway. You'd have to prove that Garett intentionally lied, and simply playing an audio recording that doesn't have the word on it doesn't do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

It doesn't work that way. People "hear" things all the time that they simply misheard or their brains made up in the heat of the moment in the midst of a very loud and tense situation. Getting audio and proving that it wasn't said (or simply that it wasn't picked up by the audio recording equipment) still doesn't prove that Garrett didn't at least think that he heard it and that he knew he didn't and made the statement anyway. You'd have to prove that Garett intentionally lied, and simply playing an audio recording that doesn't have the word on it doesn't do that.

The way I read it, and I could be reading it incorrectly, but by the time you get to #3 on that list, you've already proven that the statement is false.

Here's the statement that he made to ESPN:

Quote

"He called me the N-word," Garrett told ESPN's 'Outside The Lines' during an interview that aired Thursday evening on SportsCenter. "He called me a 'stupid N-word.'”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/sports/browns-myles-garrett-doubles-down-claim-steelers-qb-used-racial-n1136891

So, that's the 'intentional' statement that would have to be proven to be false (or true). He didn't claim to have heard or thought that he heard it, he's claiming, as fact, that those things were said. He didn't say "I heard him call me the N-word". He said 'He called me the N-Word' and "he called me a 'stupid N-word'".

So if it can be proven that the words were never spoken (and thus could not have been 'heard'), then #1 on the list is satisfied and you can move on to the other items on that list. If you can't prove the statements to be false, then the rest of the list doesn't matter. You stop at #1 on the list and can't move any further.

That's how I read it (the list), anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now