I have a hard to control urge to jump in when someone says something obviously wrong, should've let it go. Pats fans are fools if they think he'll take a discount to be with them. They're probably rationalizing it saying he wanted more from the Jets as we weren't contenders- but his big concern is money, not winning. The more I think about it, his contract structure with the Pats is genius. He had a $10m signing bonus, and a $20m option for next year, and half the bonus gets attributed to next year. So the Patriots will have to choose whether to take a $5m cap hit to let him walk- or a $25m hit to keep him. They have to decide by April 1, 2015. After a strong season, he'll have all the leverage in the world, and will be young enough at 30 for one last blockbuster contract. I'm thinking "6 years, $108m, or gtfo" is what he'll say in negotiations with the Pats. He has no reason to cut them a deal now when he knows he'll have them by the huevos in March.
Are you serious, with a handle like that??? First of all the word is alibi, not alabi, so it makes me wonder what familiarity you have with the basic concept, let alone its particular application here. If the "prosecution" can show that a defendant had opportunity to commit a "crime", that the crime was committed, and that the defendant had a motive to commit the crime, the defendant's unwillingness or inability to assert an alibi limits their ability to defend the charge. Opportunity can be shown by circumstantial evidence, and reliance on reassonable inferences. While the defendant without an alibi can still challenge the reasonableness of asserted inferences, the absence of an alibi is relevant since the inference cannot be wholly defeated by a showing that it could not be true since the defendant was in fact somewhere else, or did something else that could not have been done at the same time the crime in question was committed. In short lack of alibi is quite relevant to an examination of the evidence. In the case of Revis and the Jets, motive can be inferred since the Jets had a clear record of unhappy prior dealings with Revis. There is no independent evidence that they in fact dealt with him or tried to. They also had the "opportunity" NOT to do so, just as they had the opportunity to do so. It is also completely reasonable to assume they could have chosen to assert that they HAD attempted to do so if they in fact had, but in this case there is no evidence the Jets ever claimed they had tried to do a deal with Revis. In connection with my asssertion that the Jets did not even try to reach a deal, the fact that they did not even claim that they had is completely relevant, and supports the reasonable inference based on such circumstantial evidence that they in fact did not even try. You can feel free to disagree with my conclusion, but I see little point in further discussion of this with you or the other FO homer here disagreeing with me, since the foregoing is an ironclad, well reasoned argument.
You don't seem to understand the concept of evidence. In court, lack of evidence of innocence is not the same thing as evidence of guilt. That's just not how it works, no matter how "ironclad" you think it is. In the United States, there's a presumption of innocence. The State has to overcome that with evidence of guilt. You need evidence of guilt- not the absence of evidence of innocence. The defendant doesn't have to prove anything- he can present absolutely no evidence and still win, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. If you do have an alibi, it's highly relevant. If you don't have an alibi, that's never enough, period. You can be in the room and not be guilty- if you were across town you can't be guilty. The alibi can save you, but not having an alibi is not evidence of guilt. That's what you don't seem to get. As for my typo, whatever. I'm not perfect but I knew what an alibi was when I was ten years old- long before law school. The other thing is that criminal prosecution analogies are bad, because this doesn't have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and there's no discovery process here. I never had a problem with your conclusion about the front office not wanting Revis- but your analogy to the legal system is completely off-base.
Do you really believe the name calling adds to your argument? Regardless of your level of bloviation, your conjecture and opinion does not create a fact basis for your argument. As the saying goes, you're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.
Sign in Jets front office: "Any officer, assistant, secretary, temp or janitor accepting a call, text, email, letter or telegram from Schwartz and Feinsod will be summarily fired...and executed." (At least according to some here.)
I never said what you are implicitly characterizing my position as being. Again, an essential element of a legal claim can be established through inference. I have made the case how we can infer that the Jets did not attempt to contact Revis to negotiate last off season. The lack of alibi in such context arises as relevant since 1. the Jets did have it in their control to in fact have contacted Revis and 2. the Jets have never said, and neither has there ever been any independent evidence of same, that they did contact Revis. The lack of alibi asserted by the Jets is relevant, since without assertion of such an alibi, the inference of no contact stands unchallenged. In assessing the evidence, their failure to assert an alibi makes the inference not only unchallenged, but leaves it standing. In that connection we need not rely on direct evidence of such failure, such as a statement where they would explicitly acknowledge no attempt to contact him. The circumstantial evidence, left unchallenged by an assertion of an alibi, is sufficient. The foregoing clearly being a reasonable assessment, I don't see how one can reasonably argue that the failure to have asserted an alibi has no relevance to the analysis. It IS a consideration that supports the initial assertion. The Jets knew at the time that their handling of the Revis situation was one that might be controversial. If they wanted to take the public position with their fans, those who wondered whether the best approach was to let Revis go, I think if they were at all, AT ALL, concerned that they not look like they were not even going to try and keep him, not even try and negotiate with him, they could have easily said they had, if they did. Their failure to do so in the face of a reasonable inference that they could have contacted him (that clearly being in their control) and then that he was traded, is relevant to the analysis.
You are really lousy at this. Inference if reasonable is obviously something different than opinion. If you don't understand that, I don't know why I should waste further time talking to you. And how does calling my previous efforts here bloviation differ from name calling? You have not even attempted to decribe where my reasoning has been faulty. You are an FO Homer, and you being so explains your position on this subject. It is relevant and true.
You're missing the point though: That's the stuff I took issue with. The absence of evidence is not evidence. What you were saying is basically "if you can't disprove something, that's evidence that it's true." That's not correct, and that's the main thing I took issue with. For example- we've got the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You can't prove that an invisible spaghetti monster isn't using his Noodly Appendage to do whatever supernatural things- but that's not evidence that he exists. You need actual positive evidence, not just "well, you can't disprove this, therefore it's probably true." Whether that's what you actually meant, that's the impression multiple people got when reading your post. I do agree that if we had some statements from Idzik that he tried to work out a deal but couldn't, that that would be the "alibi" that would suggest that he did try to bring him back. The fact that we don't have that doesn't prove anything either way. As for "an essential element of a legal claim"... this isn't a legal claim. First you're talking about a criminal case, now you're talking about what sounds like a civil suit. Those have different standards of proof; preponderance of the evidence and reasonable doubt. If you just said "We haven't heard anything about Idzik having contacted Revis, so I bet he didn't" there'd be no argument. But when you start making the legal analogies, and started saying that if you can't disprove something, that's evidence that it's true- that's where you're off the mark. I've said from the beginning that I agree that Idzik didn't make any effort to get Revis. It's because of all the circumstances around it- him having traded Revis, Johnson being angry at Revis holding out, the team not viewing itself as being "one piece away" from a championship, not wanting to deal with future holdouts perhaps inspiring guys like Wilkerson and Richardson to do the same- etc. The fact that we didn't hear Idzik say he tried to work out a deal just tells me that he's secretive- it's all those other things that make me sure he never tried to get Revis.
Ok, now I'm starting to get a bit freaked out. Does he exist or not--and if so, does he REALLY have a Noodly Appendage? _
I don't give a rat's ass about the front office. I am proudly a homer for facts. Give it a shot sometime.
