Josh Jacobs facing charges…

[Magooch]

Beyond those facts, two other things came to mind recently...

- by all accounts the league is pressing hard to get a copy of the video. I think back to Deflategate, for instance...while the Wells report did find it "more likely than not" that Brady was aware of the scheme to deflate balls, much of the league's punishment didn't hinge on that BUT rather on Brady's lack of cooperation (he got rid of documentation/had his phone destroyed/etc). In other words, cooperating with the league - or being seen as cooperative - can have a big impact on a potential league suspension and/or time spent on Commissioner's list. If Jacobs' camp is seen as unwilling to cooperate with the league's investigation I would expect the league will take a stance that says at minimum they'll have to give him the "Baseline" 6 games for DV cases.

- in the case of Ray Rice, for example....Rice had ALL charges dropped following completion of court-mandated counseling/supervision. In Jacobs' case, his battery charge will NOT be dropped or removed from his record. While Rice's case may have looked worse (and may well have BEEN worse) based on the video of it versus the non-video (or description of video) from Jacobs' case, technically speaking Jacobs has the "worse" legal record of the two

- ANM's request to have video sealed also may present an interesting wrinkle here. IF that request is broadly granted, then even if the league is requesting the footage, in theory Jacobs would no longer be able to provide this evidence (Some of the more conspiracy-minded amongst us would consider this to be a feature, not a bug, and would perhaps suggest that Jacobs would be incentivized to pay ANM to put in this request for this very reason). On the other hand, the judge may also grant a more specific sealing order, for instance to say that it cannot be publicly released, in such a way that it might still allow limited access to a league investigation.

Anyways, on we go...

 

[Heyjoe4]

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Jacobs' court appearance can be watched here.

Some notes that may be worth keeping in mind relating to this topic/discussion:

- Under oath, Jacobs confirms that the police report was accurate as filed (he affirms that the "information contained in the probable cause section of the criminal complaint" is "true and correct"

- again under oath, Jacobs agrees that "the state could prove the elements of battery and of criminal damage to property beyond a reasonable doubt to 12 people who would all agree that you are guilty as charged of these offenses"

- the judge does acknowledge that the only reason it was not given a domestic violence modifier is because of the state's statutory definition of domestic violence - if they had been living together it would've been given domestic violence modifier.

- the criminal damage to property charge was given a deferred judgment, meaning it will be removed with good behavior. The battery charge however IS permanent and will remain on his record.

- the judge noted that Jacobs' conduct went "far beyond a disagreement or dispute....our legislature believes the system needs to get involved and address the behaviors that you engage in". The Judge also suggested that Jacobs "used his physical size during a disturbance, resulting in the victim being injured" and called it "serious and concerning"

- Jacobs and his counsel do not make any claims relating to self-defense, "mutual combat," or any form of counter-narrative

- Jacobs ultimately states that he "fully understands the seriousness of the situation and takes full responsibility"

NOT A LAWYER, but in my limited understanding much of this seems to clear the minimum bar for a no contest plea. Typically it seems to me that the judge will basically ask if there is enough evidence to convict, or if the court can use the complaint as a factual basis. The "true and correct" attestation regarding the initial complaint goes far beyond that minimum bar; Jacobs is essentially swearing under oath that the police narrative of the incident is indeed what actually happened.

Now again, maybe there is more to the story, but whatever "more" there is it seems readily apparent that Jacobs and co do not believe there to be enough extenuating circumstances to merit the court proceedings to potentially clear his name. Of course there is still the matter of the mystery videotape and Jacobs' league suspension to consider, but long story short I think this it's best practice to keep the actual on-the-record facts in mind when discussing this case

I thought pleading "no contest" was the quickest way to put this to rest, from a legal standpoint. The victim could sue Jacobs in civil court. She said she wants the videos sealed. It sounds like she wants to put this behind her as well as she can.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Beyond those facts, two other things came to mind recently...

- by all accounts the league is pressing hard to get a copy of the video. I think back to Deflategate, for instance...while the Wells report did find it "more likely than not" that Brady was aware of the scheme to deflate balls, much of the league's punishment didn't hinge on that BUT rather on Brady's lack of cooperation (he got rid of documentation/had his phone destroyed/etc). In other words, cooperating with the league - or being seen as cooperative - can have a big impact on a potential league suspension and/or time spent on Commissioner's list. If Jacobs' camp is seen as unwilling to cooperate with the league's investigation I would expect the league will take a stance that says at minimum they'll have to give him the "Baseline" 6 games for DV cases.

- in the case of Ray Rice, for example....Rice had ALL charges dropped following completion of court-mandated counseling/supervision. In Jacobs' case, his battery charge will NOT be dropped or removed from his record. While Rice's case may have looked worse (and may well have BEEN worse) based on the video of it versus the non-video (or description of video) from Jacobs' case, technically speaking Jacobs has the "worse" legal record of the two

- ANM's request to have video sealed also may present an interesting wrinkle here. IF that request is broadly granted, then even if the league is requesting the footage, in theory Jacobs would no longer be able to provide this evidence (Some of the more conspiracy-minded amongst us would consider this to be a feature, not a bug, and would perhaps suggest that Jacobs would be incentivized to pay ANM to put in this request for this very reason). On the other hand, the judge may also grant a more specific sealing order, for instance to say that it cannot be publicly released, in such a way that it might still allow limited access to a league investigation.

Anyways, on we go...

On we go. Hopefully Jacobs gets a 3 or 4 game suspension even without the video. I’m not optimistic and think 6 is likely. Hope I’m wrong. That’s been known to happen….

 

[OldSchool101]

Beyond those facts, two other things came to mind recently...

- by all accounts the league is pressing hard to get a copy of the video. I think back to Deflategate, for instance...while the Wells report did find it "more likely than not" that Brady was aware of the scheme to deflate balls, much of the league's punishment didn't hinge on that BUT rather on Brady's lack of cooperation (he got rid of documentation/had his phone destroyed/etc). In other words, cooperating with the league - or being seen as cooperative - can have a big impact on a potential league suspension and/or time spent on Commissioner's list. If Jacobs' camp is seen as unwilling to cooperate with the league's investigation I would expect the league will take a stance that says at minimum they'll have to give him the "Baseline" 6 games for DV cases.

- in the case of Ray Rice, for example....Rice had ALL charges dropped following completion of court-mandated counseling/supervision. In Jacobs' case, his battery charge will NOT be dropped or removed from his record. While Rice's case may have looked worse (and may well have BEEN worse) based on the video of it versus the non-video (or description of video) from Jacobs' case, technically speaking Jacobs has the "worse" legal record of the two

- ANM's request to have video sealed also may present an interesting wrinkle here. IF that request is broadly granted, then even if the league is requesting the footage, in theory Jacobs would no longer be able to provide this evidence (Some of the more conspiracy-minded amongst us would consider this to be a feature, not a bug, and would perhaps suggest that Jacobs would be incentivized to pay ANM to put in this request for this very reason). On the other hand, the judge may also grant a more specific sealing order, for instance to say that it cannot be publicly released, in such a way that it might still allow limited access to a league investigation.

Anyways, on we go...

It’s entirely possible that Jacobs counsel agreed to a settlement but only if it didn’t include continuing damage to their clients. Releasing the video would also likely not do the complainant favors. Once it established he’s taken responsibility and going to pay restitution? the only thing it does is damage Both reputations imo.
Either way Jacobs would’ve likely paid in Civil Court and dearly in Criminal Court. There’s an Old Sermon on the Mount that lends credence to these matters (Matthew 5:25) That was an extremely wise move by him to follow it imo. In Southern laymans’ terms. “Son… best Take your licks and move on”.

 

[milani]

It’s entirely possible that Jacobs counsel agreed to a settlement but only if it didn’t include continuing damage to their clients. Releasing the video would also likely not do the complainant favors. Once it established he’s taken responsibility and going to pay restitution? the only thing it does is damage Both reputations imo.
Either way Jacobs would’ve likely paid in Civil Court and dearly in Criminal Court. There’s an Old Sermon on the Mount that lends credence to these matters (Matthew 5:25) That was an extremely wise move by him to follow it imo. In Southern laymans’ terms. “Son… best Take your licks and move on”.

Roll with the punches.

 

[OldSchool101]

There’s another point I’d like to make on this. This isn’t to discount poor behavior as I think we all know we need to work on changing things in our own lives, 100% myself included. We reach a work in progress (hopefully!)

I just saw an article that spoke to a player facing a possible 3 game suspension for Drunk Driving. Now I’d pose this question.

Which is more dangerous? Also Which is more potentially harmful to others if allowed to exist on a long term basis?

1 Drunk Driving? (Including under the Influence of Narcotics or similar)

or

2 Pushing a family number or intimate friend down after a heated Quarrel? (Such as during a break-up etc)

 

[OldSchool101]

I’m going to answer first because I’m not here to judge anyone. Matter of fact I’m here to promote Grace to be quite honest. We each need it or have needed it.

While BOTH need to be corrective behavior. I believe #1 is FAR more destructive to Woman and Men alike. Many of us (including myself( know this to be truth because we’ve witnessed it. I personally have witnessed multiple deaths caused directly by Drugs and Alcohol. Buzz Kill : Alcohol IS and ALWAYS has been medically classified as a Drug

A dispute like Josh had could easily be a “one-off” anomoly. While Driving Intoxicated or Under the Influence of Drugs (Alcohol IS a Drug no matter how much our society likes to promote it or sugar coat it) is VERY rarely a lone Offense or behavior that ceases the next day, next month or next year.

As a Passenger riding with the NFL? MY prayer is that the NFL gets this one right for once, so we don’t drive into our own drunken hypocrisy.

 

[Heyjoe4]

There’s another point I’d like to make on this. This isn’t to discount poor behavior as I think we all know we need to work on changing things in our own lives, 100% myself included. We reach a work in progress (hopefully!)

I just saw an article that spoke to a player facing a possible 3 game suspension for Drunk Driving. Now I’d pose this question.

Which is more dangerous? Also Which is more potentially harmful to others if allowed to exist on a long term basis?

1 Drunk Driving? (Including under the Influence of Narcotics or similar)

or

2 Pushing a family number or intimate friend down after a heated Quarrel? (Such as during a break-up etc)

Interesting moral dilemma you pose. But without contact, it can’t be answered. Both could result in death, so the choice is not possible as written.

 

[OldSchool101]

Interesting moral dilemma you pose. But without contact, it can’t be answered. Both could result in death, so the choice is not possible as written.

Well you snd I have been around long enough to know the answer imo. I know of 5 people I could offer by name that died in alcohol deaths. If I sat and thought I could come up with several more. 1 drank himself to falling backward off a chair and died as a result. Literally.

I know not 1 person who was shoved down and died as a result. Not saying it can’t happen but it’s not even close to alcohol or drinking and driving.

Yet here we are in the midst of changing a man’s life for likely doing less risky behavior than we’ve each participated in. Getting caught is irrelevant. We’re each guilty and but quick to judge a man who’s done a less severe crime than ourselves and then punishing him more than the same athlete who just was arrested for DWI. Plus a DWI resulting in a minor passenger or multiple Offenses is a Felony. Pushing someone (Battery) even multiple times rarely results in a Felony conviction. We’re not talking into an oncoming Subway train.

If faced with being pushed down or getting a DWI which would you prefer? Then why is a current case of DWI a
3 weeks suspension??

I see through to the posturing of the NFL without a fair or equitable standard of conduct or punishment is all I’m saying. First occasion this should be a 2-3 game suspension and fine. Totally different if it’s a 3rd offense etc… but that how they are treating this case. How bad do we need to beat the guy up and should we hold ourselves and NFL board members to the same standard?

 

[Poppa San]

DUI is sadly more "socially acceptable" than some dude beating on his main squeeze.

 

[Magooch]

I would like to see the NFL come down harder on substance use (including alcohol), in my estimation 3 games is ridiculously low. But frankly I think the NFL discipline policy in general is usually frighteningly lenient.
That said I would worry about potentially minimizing the effects of DV here to illustrate a point about DUI and related offenses.

Research overwhelmingly shows that “one off” incidents are exceedingly rare. It is almost always recurring and part of a broader pattern of conduct AND is almost always a cycle that escalates. Victims of DV are also exponentially more likely to be k*lled by their partner than the general population or those in non-DV occurring relationships.

The league definitely should come down harder on DUI, SUD-type offenses for sure, but I don't think there is a lot of value in comparatives or "which is worse" exercises. IMO it's backwards to look at in such a way as to say "If DUI only gets you 3 games then Jacobs shouldn't get 6" (and I'm not saying that anyone is saying this necessarily)...instead we can simply say "the NFL needs stronger punishments for DUI" - the two are independent and should be treated as such

 

[rmontro]

DUI is sadly more "socially acceptable" than some dude beating on his main squeeze.

It's politics.

 

[Schultz]

I’m going to answer first because I’m not here to judge anyone. Matter of fact I’m here to promote Grace to be quite honest. We each need it or have needed it.

While BOTH need to be corrective behavior. I believe #1 is FAR more destructive to Woman and Men alike. Many of us (including myself( know this to be truth because we’ve witnessed it. I personally have witnessed multiple deaths caused directly by Drugs and Alcohol. Buzz Kill : Alcohol IS and ALWAYS has been medically classified as a Drug

A dispute like Josh had could easily be a “one-off” anomoly. While Driving Intoxicated or Under the Influence of Drugs (Alcohol IS a Drug no matter how much our society likes to promote it or sugar coat it) is VERY rarely a lone Offense or behavior that ceases the next day, next month or next year.

As a Passenger riding with the NFL? MY prayer is that the NFL gets this one right for once, so we don’t drive into our own drunken hypocrisy.

Depends on the circumstances. Did the person receiving the DUI have a few at his neighborhood bar and have a short ride home? Did they have a couple with dinner? Were they driving a bit of a distance let's say after an open bar at a wedding or after watching a 3+ hour sporting event. Were kids in the car?
Did the person push them down while trying to leave and deescalate the situation? Did they do anything physical before the push? Did they threaten to do even more harm the next time? Was a weapon involved?

 

[red4tribe]

Well you snd I have been around long enough to know the answer imo. I know of 5 people I could offer by name that died in alcohol deaths. If I sat and thought I could come up with several more. 1 drank himself to falling backward off a chair and died as a result. Literally.

I know not 1 person who was shoved down and died as a result. Not saying it can’t happen but it’s not even close to alcohol or drinking and driving.

Yet here we are in the midst of changing a man’s life for likely doing less risky behavior than we’ve each participated in. Getting caught is irrelevant. We’re each guilty and but quick to judge a man who’s done a less severe crime than ourselves and then punishing him more than the same athlete who just was arrested for DWI. Plus a DWI resulting in a minor passenger or multiple Offenses is a Felony. Pushing someone (Battery) even multiple times rarely results in a Felony conviction. We’re not talking into an oncoming Subway train.

If faced with being pushed down or getting a DWI which would you prefer? Then why is a current case of DWI a
3 weeks suspension??

I see through to the posturing of the NFL without a fair or equitable standard of conduct or punishment is all I’m saying. First occasion this should be a 2-3 game suspension and fine. Totally different if it’s a 3rd offense etc… but that how they are treating this case. How bad do we need to beat the guy up and should we hold ourselves and NFL board members to the same standard?

DUI might be more likely to kill someone, but both are completely unacceptable behavior. Also, I’m hoping not everyone has driven while intoxicated. I certainly haven’t.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Well you snd I have been around long enough to know the answer imo. I know of 5 people I could offer by name that died in alcohol deaths. If I sat and thought I could come up with several more. 1 drank himself to falling backward off a chair and died as a result. Literally.

I know not 1 person who was shoved down and died as a result. Not saying it can’t happen but it’s not even close to alcohol or drinking and driving.

Yet here we are in the midst of changing a man’s life for likely doing less risky behavior than we’ve each participated in. Getting caught is irrelevant. We’re each guilty and but quick to judge a man who’s done a less severe crime than ourselves and then punishing him more than the same athlete who just was arrested for DWI. Plus a DWI resulting in a minor passenger or multiple Offenses is a Felony. Pushing someone (Battery) even multiple times rarely results in a Felony conviction. We’re not talking into an oncoming Subway train.

If faced with being pushed down or getting a DWI which would you prefer? Then why is a current case of DWI a
3 weeks suspension??

I see through to the posturing of the NFL without a fair or equitable standard of conduct or punishment is all I’m saying. First occasion this should be a 2-3 game suspension and fine. Totally different if it’s a 3rd offense etc… but that how they are treating this case. How bad do we need to beat the guy up and should we hold ourselves and NFL board members to the same standard?

You are trying to use drunk driving as a proxy for domestic violence. It doesn’t work. It just doesn’t work.

“We are in the midst of changing a man’s (Jacobs) life….”

WE aren’t doing anything. That is up to our legal system.

If Jacobs was concerned with seriously hurting his girlfriend, he should have thought about it before he knocked her down. For her sake, I’m glad she was not seriously hurt (physically).. But it could have been much worse, and that will guide the NFL penalty he gets.

Back to your DWI analogy, people need to think before driving after having a few, or many.

Absent any more info, like the video, the NFL is likely to suspend him for 6 games. Fair or not, after the Ray Rice debacle, they will avoid that by applying the max penalty.

We all want Jacobs back. I want to see his victim get justice. This is likely headed to civil court where the victim will likely get something from Jacobs - meaning $$$ and not another toss to the ground.

 

[Heyjoe4]

DUI might be more likely to kill someone, but both are completely unacceptable behavior. Also, I’m hoping not everyone has driven while intoxicated. I certainly haven’t.

Well said red. Thanks.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Depends on the circumstances. Did the person receiving the DUI have a few at his neighborhood bar and have a short ride home? Did they have a couple with dinner? Were they driving a bit of a distance let's say after an open bar at a wedding or after watching a 3+ hour sporting event. Were kids in the car?
Did the person push them down while trying to leave and deescalate the situation? Did they do anything physical before the push? Did they threaten to do even more harm the next time? Was a weapon involved?

All good questions. OS tries to make this simple by comparing DWI to domestic abuse. Without context, that is of no use.

 

[AKCheese]

Just throwing this out there but the NFL needs to figure out what’s what and move on

 

[rmontro]

Just throwing this out there but the NFL needs to figure out what’s what and move on

I'm sure the Packers would appreciate that.

 

[OldSchool101]

All good questions. OS tries to make this simple by comparing DWI to domestic abuse. Without context, that is of no use.

Oh. I must’ve missed the Jury verdict.
Ive been busy at work. Did the State categorize this as Domestic or some type of ongoing domestic abuse? I was thinking it was a singular altercation instigated and perpetrated by some chick that confronted Josh out of jealousy because she saw the $ train potentially ending (that’s what I read in her statement) and she went as far as using her Motor Vehicle to block him outside his residence. Did they find out she lives there? please feel free to elaborate on your recent findings I wasn’t aware of the updates.
Thanks in advance.

 

[AKCheese]

Oh. I must’ve missed the Jury verdict.
Ive been busy at work. Did the State categorize this as Domestic or some type of ongoing domestic abuse? I was thinking it was a singular altercation instigated and perpetrated by some chick that confronted Josh out of jealousy because she saw the $ train potentially ending (that’s what I read in her statement) and she went as far as using her Motor Vehicle to block him outside his residence. Did they find out she lives there? please feel free to elaborate on your recent findings I wasn’t aware of the updates.
Thanks in advance.

Yeah if he was an owner he’d just buy hookers

 

[OldSchool101]

Yeah if he was an owner he’d just buy hookers

I heard they can also be domesticated. Just a rumor though.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Oh. I must’ve missed the Jury verdict.
Ive been busy at work. Did the State categorize this as Domestic or some type of ongoing domestic abuse? I was thinking it was a singular altercation instigated and perpetrated by some chick that confronted Josh out of jealousy because she saw the $ train potentially ending (that’s what I read in her statement) and she went as far as using her Motor Vehicle to block him outside his residence. Did they find out she lives there? please feel free to elaborate on your recent findings I wasn’t aware of the updates.
Thanks in advance.

“…some chick…”?

Beyond tone deaf, and a clue of how you view women, without respect.

Sadly, you’re not alone.

 

[Half Empty]

“…some chick…”?

Beyond tone deaf, and a clue of how you view women, without respect.

Sadly, you’re not alone.

Not necessary 'women', but THAT woman

 

[OldSchool101]

Not necessary 'women', but THAT woman

Thank you kind sir. Someone that actually gets it.