Pacman on Sportscenter

Well here's another round of trying to educate RollTide about reality. Stay tuned to see if we succeed.

Then I ask you to post links to these numerous eyewitness and police repors and comments.
Because the only eyewitness to make a statement is Pacman's publicist. Then you have the clubowner who is supposedly relaying eyewitness accounts from his employees, but even you have to admit there's at least the chance that he misunderstood or overembelished points, given he wasn't there himself.

(and to illustrate why socalled "eyewitness" accounts are highly questionable just read the latest eyewitness account of Porter vs. Jones here)

Well you've made that assumption several times and keep spouting it. But see unlike you I don't think it benefits the victim to wrongly punish someone who is innocent. I think it does more justice to the victims to find and punish the one who is actually guilty and therefore I put my trust in the police and legal system to find this person and proves his/her guilt.

What about the fact that Pacman didn't start throwing money around? What about the significant evidence that the brawl was caused by the manager stealing Pacman's money?

I don't think he's out to get Pacman, I think he just knows that even if the shooter is ever found, he probably isn't wealthy and therefore the chance of extorting some money from Pacman to pay for the security guards injuries are a lot better.
While I appreciate his apparent motive (raising money for the injured employee), I don't agree with his methods.

Well if you read other threads on this board you'd know I wouldn't classify strippers as whore and sluts (without justification anyway) and I certainly haven't called them liars, because they haven't made any statements that I could call lies.
Of course again I encourage you to post the statements from these women or other employees or patrons at the club.

Well that one is just too moronic to even warrant a serious response, but I'll still say Pacman didn't shoot these people, so why would it have anything to do with Pacman's career in the first place?

So far there's just as much publicly available proof of that, as there is of him being in cahoots with Pacman, ie. none whatsoever.

See, this is the sticky bit for people like RollTide. Because here they need to make the choice between lambasting Pacman for bringing 81K to the bar or believing the clubowner who says Pacman didn't have 81K and that the money seized from the hotel room was the managers "take" from the evening.
So which is it RollTide? Is the clubowner telling the truth and Pacman didn't go into the bar withous an obscene amount of money that supposedly started the brawl or is he lying and Pacman did do just that?

Several other people were throwing money around at the same time, what makes you so sure it was because of Pacman throwing money that the brawl started?

And anyone who thinks there should be any consequences for Pacman with the utter lack of conclusive evidence or facts that we have now, must be either morally bankrupt or just not very bright.

No your position isn't the majority. If you would look outside your bubble you'd notice that most places of respected journalism aren't holding Pacman responsible for what happened in Vegas and that the new GM's response was ambiguous and probably related to the incident in Georgia more than the one in Las Vegas. You also had Jeff Fisher come out and say they were investigating the Las Vegas incident, but they wouldn't make any comments until they had all the fact. Which incidently seems to be the same position the LVPD is taking.

 

He wasn't found innocent, he made a deal where he pleaded guilty to trying to cover up the murder and agreed to testify against two co-defendants to avoid the chargers of murder and aggrevated assault.

 

The Tennessean has posted the NFL's current Personal Conduct Policy here and it's pretty clear that being arrested or charged is not a punishable offence, only a plea or conviction is punishable.

Then there's the paragraph on Duty to report prohibited conduct

It clearly states that failure to repor is conduct detrimental, but I don't really understand why they added: "will be taken into consideration in the final determination of discipline under this policy".

 

And according to NFL spokesman Greg Aiello

So it seems clear they will only punish Pacman for the incident in Georgia (if he's found guilty or pleas) and his failure to report it.

 

I agree that is what it seems. My only concern is that the language of the policy suggests there is some discretion in determination of "unresolved events" and in how to punish a "conduct detrimental' violation.

Pac's PR has been a nightmare. His publicist gave some unbelievable blather a few weeks back, but other than a balanced ESPN report, there has been nothing from him. Public sentiment against him is at an all time high.

I'm very interested to see what type of leeway Godell will take handing out a punishment for Pac, when he has only one offense (conduct detrimental-failure to report) against the guidelines. I do believe he senses the public sentiment against Pac and would like to have his "poster boy". However, I don't think the NFLPA will lay down if he tries to hand out a 1 year suspension with only one policy violation. I think the NFLPA WILL lay down for 4-5 games for one violation.

Kudos to you Vigsted for your rational and diligent approach to the situation.