Around the NFL

[LayneStaley]

No clue where to post some stuff not necessarily team related but could be? Feel free to delete if this belongs somewhere else.



Maxx and Parsons would be nasty. I probably wouldn’t pay the price though.

[heavyD]

Don't forget about the police for their, ahem, "clerical error."

There's something really fishy about this. The 49ers keeping this under wraps for weeks, clerical errors placing blame on the other driver. The team going out of their way to keep this quiet kind of stinks. Did he take a blood alcohol test? I get the feeling the officer involved was a 49ers fan and they wanted all parties to get stories straight before it got out.

[raidersince63]

Police say "alcohol was not a factor" but how would they know this without a test. Reports also claim the accident "was not Shanahan's fault"...but Shanahan even admit's that he "dropped" his phone and bent down to retreive it just before the crash. (sounds like his fault to me) (and I would think that his texting history will come under scrutiny) (Cops' actions/no actions will also come under scrutiny)

I'm a bit late to this thread, but this seems to have too many inconsistencies for this whole thing to be believed.

[Atlasffa]

[Attyla]

Blood alcohol levels are not tested at the site of the accident if there is no probable cause. And that is determined by a number of easily observed factors. Eyes, speech, balance and breath is the most common ways. And actually, testing a driver can be a violation of privacy unless there is probable cause. And unless the officer is a reconstruction trained officer, they will not in many cases determine fault. If he does, will likely not be a final determination. As for the team keeping this under wraps? Unless the coach violated a team rule (criminal charge) they would not really need to make an announcement. it appears this was a traffic violation and not a criminal act, at least at this time.

My father in law was a cop for decades and by association I don't see anything fishy. It looks like there might be a clerical error which happens a lot and is corrected after the fact. A lot of changes are made to the police reports after they get more info. I am just glad he is recovering from his injuries. He is likely going to be financially responsible for the accident. Insurance will be handling this. He might get sued but that again will almost certainly be through his insurance company.

[raidersince63]

Players definitely care about location too. I think we might get Vita but if not please not the Chargers.

I can see the 49ers and Rams checking in on him. Both of those teams lean more to acquiring proven vets through FA as opposed to the draft

[Xramfan]

I’m certain Shanahans insurance company and attorneys are thrilled with him admitting fault to the press over and over.

[Opoponax50]

Honestly, I couldn't give 2 shits about Kyle Shanahan or his accident or any cover up.

Or Vrabel gettin' some sweet ass on the side. It doesn't affect the Raiders. Other team's problems, whatever those problems may be, are their problems, not ours.

[Opoponax50]

I can see the 49ers and Rams checking in on him. Both of those teams lean more to acquiring proven vets through FA as opposed to the draft

My guess is that he ends up on the Rams. They have picks to spare and no matter what their cap situation is, they always find a way to get the guys they want. I won't be sad if we don't get him, but I'd pretty stoked if we did.

[Attyla]

I’m certain Shanahans insurance company and attorneys are thrilled with him admitting fault to the press over and over.

They honestly probably don't care overly. If he has a standard policy, I doubt they pay out over 50K which is about the max most people carry. If he gets sued, anything award over that actually comes from him, not his insurance company. But correcting the police report would almost certainly be all the person he hit would need to get an award so it is a moot point, him admitting fault. I read up on this incident and it almost certainly was handled as a traffic infraction and did not escalate to a criminal act. He will pay a fine and his deductible and move on. Testing him was not on the table, like I said it would be a violation of his privacy unless there was probable cause. Protections under the law favor the person over the state. If they had asked him to test and he refuses, that is considered a positive test and the driver gets arrested. Once at the booking site, they then can force him to take a blood test (not a breath test at that point) and he is either under the influence or he is not. That did not happen which tells me he was observed not to be visibly impaired.

[Xramfan]

It was tongue in cheek but I recall almost every job Ive had where I was driving vehicles, I was always told to never admit fault......even if it was my fault, shut your mouth and let the insurance company and attorneys do the talking.

No dog in this hunt regardless

[Atlasffa]

Claws out at Bengals TC

[Atlasffa]

Note the cameras on their helmets. Interesting.

[SkullCrusher]

They honestly probably don't care overly. If he has a standard policy, I doubt they pay out over 50K which is about the max most people carry. If he gets sued, anything award over that actually comes from him, not his insurance company. But correcting the police report would almost certainly be all the person he hit would need to get an award so it is a moot point, him admitting fault. I read up on this incident and it almost certainly was handled as a traffic infraction and did not escalate to a criminal act. He will pay a fine and his deductible and move on. Testing him was not on the table, like I said it would be a violation of his privacy unless there was probable cause. Protections under the law favor the person over the state. If they had asked him to test and he refuses, that is considered a positive test and the driver gets arrested. Once at the booking site, they then can force him to take a blood test (not a breath test at that point) and he is either under the influence or he is not. That did not happen which tells me he was observed not to be visibly impaired.

Ok this one is interesting....

First the insurance will completely figure out who's at fault, his words or not.

The lawyer will now have to work with what they have.

I'm 1000% for Kyle doing the right thing and admitting, this is about conscious to him and that tells me he's a good person. He made a pretty big mistake. f[raiders_icon]ck this world and playing all the angles, it's how we got here.

Put that isn't why I respond it's the "I doubt they pay over 50k which is about the max people carry", I'm a nobody and I have a 1.5 mil protection policy because I almost got my ass handed to me with a 100k coverage. The driver sued for 800K and I would have been liable for anything over 100K.

I have to think Kyle is way more responsible than me with the money he has, he has to be covered every way of Sunday.

"like I said it would be a violation of his privacy unless there was probable cause" - that's a funny one to, so many examples of that not being the case. That would mean road side checks would be illegal because there is no way they have probable cause on 100's of random drivers by. Cops will do whatever the f[raiders_icon]ck they feel like here and in this case they didn't feel like it. But I love the thought of they can't.... nice happy thoughts.

[Attyla]

Ok this one is interesting....

First the insurance will completely figure out who's at fault, his words or not.

The lawyer will now have to work with what they have.

I'm 1000% for Kyle doing the right thing and admitting, this is about conscious to him and that tells me he's a good person. He made a pretty big mistake. f[raiders_icon]ck this world and playing all the angles, it's how we got here.

Put that isn't why I respond it's the "I doubt they pay over 50k which is about the max people carry", I'm a nobody and I have a 1.5 mil protection policy because I almost got my ass handed to me with a 100k coverage. The driver sued for 800K and I would have been liable for anything over 100K.

I have to think Kyle is way more responsible than me with the money he has, he has to be covered every way of Sunday.

"like I said it would be a violation of his privacy unless there was probable cause" - that's a funny one to, so many examples of that not being the case. That would mean road side checks would be illegal because there is no way they have probable cause on 100's of random drivers by. Cops will do whatever the f[raiders_icon]ck they feel like here and in this case they didn't feel like it. But I love the thought of they can't.... nice happy thoughts.

Roadside checks are not intended for actual testing. The cops have the right to stop and detain, they do not have the right to test without probable cause. They get probable cause if they smell alcohol, you are slurring your speech, your eyes are not responsive or bloodshot, if you are stupid enough to have an open container in view, or you are unsteady on your feet (most common indicators) and that would allow them to test. But even then, you have the right to refuse any tests. It just means you are going down to a detainment center because refusal is an automatic fail. At that point they can compel a blood test. You pass that, you are good. You fail that, you are probably going to get additional charges. But make no mistake, they cannot test you without your consent at the traffic stop itself and they cannot tell you to test without probable cause. And we now live in the time of body cameras everywhere so they are being more cautious than ever.

As for insurance, every state requires different levels of coverage. I am sure Shanahan has good coverage, why would he not? And I am sure he is about to get that coverage spent up. Again, why would the other driver not get every dime they can? Was he stupid? Yep, most of us are at some point. And this cost him big.

That all said, everyone is making this out to be a bigger deal than it is. He got into an accident. Did the cop favor him because he is the 9ers head coach? Hard to say without more data. Possible, even probable. Does that matter? Not really, the cop was almost certainly not an accident reconstructionist so the initial report would not be the final report. Who really cares if they got it wrong up front. They almost certainly got it right now. Good for the other driver. They are getting a payday.

Finally, can a cop fake probable cause? Sure, there are bad cops out there. Do most just do the job? Yea, especially traffic cops, they just want to give out tickets so that is what they do. They want to get the drunks off the road so they look for bottles, check the eyes, listen to the speech and so forth. If they feel like you might be, they do the field sobriety stuff. If they think you fail, then they have probable cause to test. Not the other way around. Body cam stuff really has made them much more apt to do it right. Because cops get graded too. I was pulled over on Super Bowl Sunday, and that is a night when lots of DUI's happen. I was even stupid enough to unbuckle my seatbelt to get to my wallet as he approached. I was quick to apologize and explain why my belt was off. I got a ticket for an incomplete stop at a sign. No ticket for the belt and no inquiry if I had had something to drink. And that is because I spoke well, made eye contact and did not smell of anything other than some buffalo wings. He could have tried but he did not have any reason. The end, I paid my fine and moved on.

[SkullCrusher]

Roadside checks are not intended for actual testing. The cops have the right to stop and detain, they do not have the right to test without probable cause. They get probable cause if they smell alcohol, you are slurring your speech, your eyes are not responsive or bloodshot, if you are stupid enough to have an open container in view, or you are unsteady on your feet (most common indicators) and that would allow them to test. But even then, you have the right to refuse any tests. It just means you are going down to a detainment center because refusal is an automatic fail. At that point they can compel a blood test. You pass that, you are good. You fail that, you are probably going to get additional charges. But make no mistake, they cannot test you without your consent at the traffic stop itself and they cannot tell you to test without probable cause. And we now live in the time of body cameras everywhere so they are being more cautious than ever.

As for insurance, every state requires different levels of coverage. I am sure Shanahan has good coverage, why would he not? And I am sure he is about to get that coverage spent up. Again, why would the other driver not get every dime they can? Was he stupid? Yep, most of us are at some point. And this cost him big.

That all said, everyone is making this out to be a bigger deal than it is. He got into an accident. Did the cop favor him because he is the 9ers head coach? Hard to say without more data. Possible, even probable. Does that matter? Not really, the cop was almost certainly not an accident reconstructionist so the initial report would not be the final report. Who really cares if they got it wrong up front. They almost certainly got it right now. Good for the other driver. They are getting a payday.

Finally, can a cop fake probable cause? Sure, there are bad cops out there. Do most just do the job? Yea, especially traffic cops, they just want to give out tickets so that is what they do. They want to get the drunks off the road so they look for bottles, check the eyes, listen to the speech and so forth. If they feel like you might be, they do the field sobriety stuff. If they think you fail, then they have probable cause to test. Not the other way around. Body cam stuff really has made them much more apt to do it right. Because cops get graded too. I was pulled over on Super Bowl Sunday, and that is a night when lots of DUI's happen. I was even stupid enough to unbuckle my seatbelt to get to my wallet as he approached. I was quick to apologize and explain why my belt was off. I got a ticket for an incomplete stop at a sign. No ticket for the belt and no inquiry if I had had something to drink. And that is because I spoke well, made eye contact and did not smell of anything other than some buffalo wings. He could have tried but he did not have any reason. The end, I paid my fine and moved on.

"They get probable cause if they smell alcohol, you are slurring your speech, your eyes are not responsive or bloodshot" - all super highly subjective and easy to bend. They are still indiscriminately pulling you over for such a check with no probable cause other than "people drink and drive all the time".