The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

VetSkinsFan wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:Those are two totally different types of concerns.

I was mostly poking fun at HEROHAMO (which he knows and takes with a good spirit), but really you can't play the character concern card in this case when you support someone who's had a felony conviction of burglary and trespassing (with another accusation of sexual assault...yay!).

One is far more serious than the other. I'll give you a hint, it's the one that involves the loss of voting rights...

Did I miss the memo or is it still innocent until proven guilty?

Felony conviction is the part of that post you're looking for

Sign him because he was Portis' fullback at The U

(with another accusation of sexual assault

I don't a conviction in this statement.

VetSkinsFan wrote:

(with another accusation of sexual assault

I don't a conviction in this statement.

Ok. Remove that accusation part.

Felony convictions for burglary and trespassing. That's okay? But taking a dump when you're drunk in a non-toilet (which I'm sure has happened in countless frat rooms), all charges which were later dropped (just like the sexual assault portion of Colt's arrest) isn't?

Prior to entering the NFL, Davenport achieved a small measure of infamy after he allegedly defecated in the laundry basket of a Barry University woman in her dorm room on April 1, 2002. In a plea bargain, his felony charge of second-degree burglary and misdemeanor count of criminal mischief were dropped in exchange for his completing 100 hours of community service.

See, if you're going to hold something against him that he was never convicted of, you're sure as hell going to have to hold the same thing to the convicted felon.

Tally therefore:

Second-degree burglary (felony), criminal mischief (misdemeanor) -NO CONVICTION

vs.

Burglary (felony), trespassing (felony) - CONVICTION; Sexual Assault (felony) - NO CONVICTION.

I mean, I'm a lawyer and all, so maybe it's not hard for me to understand that a convicted 2-time felon has a much worse criminal history than someone with no convictions.

PulpExposure wrote:

Second-degree burglary (felony), criminal mischief (misdemeanor) -NO CONVICTION

vs.

Burglary (felony), trespassing (felony) - CONVICTION; Sexual Assault (felony) - NO CONVICTION.

I mean, I'm a lawyer and all, so maybe it's not hard for me to understand that a convicted 2-time felon has a much worse criminal history than someone with no convictions.

I wasn't aware a law degree was necessary to grasp the difference between a crime and a non-criminal act. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, or so I keep hearing.

The question remains: Does Davenport have any value to the Redskins?
The answer remains: Davenport has no value to the Redskins, and as of this moment in time, no value to any other NFL team, which is why he remains available.

Every time anyone is cut by any team for any reason, we have a discussion thread about whether or not the Redskins should sign the player. Davenport is several steps up from Chris Henry, Odell Thurman, et. al., who have also had discussion threads, even though it was painfully obvious they would be suspended by the league. Unlike those players, Davenport is not likely to be suspended by the league, so I suppose this discussion isn't completely useless, although it is close.

"We" don't sign anyone. If the Washington Redskins want a player, they will sign the player, whether or not "We" discuss the player in a thread on a message board. And somehow, I doubt where the player took a dump will enter their discussions about whether or not to sign Davenport.

GSPODS wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

Second-degree burglary (felony), criminal mischief (misdemeanor) -NO CONVICTION

vs.

Burglary (felony), trespassing (felony) - CONVICTION; Sexual Assault (felony) - NO CONVICTION.

I mean, I'm a lawyer and all, so maybe it's not hard for me to understand that a convicted 2-time felon has a much worse criminal history than someone with no convictions.

I wasn't aware a law degree was necessary to grasp the difference between a crime and a non-criminal act. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, or so I keep hearing.

You don't do sarcasm very well, do you?

PulpExposure wrote:

GSPODS wrote:Ignorance of the law is no excuse, or so I keep hearing.

You don't do sarcasm very well, do you?

I thought the above comment was entirely sarcastic. The sarcasm was not in your direction.
More to the point, and I think you've covered this in detail, if the Redskins will sign a convicted felon, which they apparently will, then if they wanted a non-criminal they would sign him.