Jim Harbaugh Says Ray McDonald Will Play On Sunday

[Front7vLOB]

To me this is not that complicated.

The Niners FO should be able to make some kind of statement that re-assures the NFL and the fan base they believe that RayMac is not guilty. They need to be able to stand behind they're employee and if they cannot do this then they should be taking action. That action at this point should be to sit him. Probably with pay but make at least a statement that you are willing to do the right thing. What they have done to this point sends the message they are willing to look the other way if it means better production on the field.

Now Marvin won't like this but the above statement doesn't apply to every team. It applies to the Niners because of recent events. If the Seahawks had multiple violent type arrests over the last couple years and something like this popped up I would be questioning my FO. At some point you have to assume this isn't just bad luck. There is something else going on that pretty obviously goes deeper than just luck.

As a Seahawk fan this tells me that Dial and Carradine are not capable of carrying RayMac's jock. Obviously those guys are not the super hero replacements the Niners fan base seems to think they are. If they were, then this wouldn't be an issue.

1) you never, ever make public statements when there is an ongoing investigation. I understand the Seahawks publicly defended Lynch recently, but the climate has changed and the 49ers would be foolish to come and say, "here are the facts and this is why McDonald is innocent." The 49ers would get more backlash doing that than playing him tonight and not saying anything.. When there was an investigation with Kap, the 49ers initially did not comment on the incident until months into the investigation when the media was getting ancy... We are not there yet with Ray McDonald

Not saying they should state the facts. They can do what Seattle did in supporting their player. A simple statement saying something like "we have been looking into the RayMac situation and have reason to believe he is not guilty" or "we don't have sufficient information supporting his guilt in this case to take action" type pf comments. Obviously they don't currently know all the facts but you would be ignorant to believe they don't have a pretty good pulse of what went on.

2) the 49ers don't have "multiple violent arrests" in recent years as you just implied. You make it sound like the culture of the 49ers locker room is cultivating this behavior. I call BS. Ray McDonald fell in the draft for character issues. Ahmad Brooks was drafted in the Supplemental Draft for character issues. Sure, you can question the FO for taking chances on them, but their incidents with the law are not the result of a "bad" locker room.

You forgot to mention Culliver and Aldon. Hell Aldon alone supports my statement. Multiple means more than one. In the Niners case there has been a significant rash of arrests and or should be arrests. They lead the league even with Brooks getting off Scott free. By the way, why didn't the Niners do anything to Brooks? Do you think he didn't attack a fellow team mate with a beer bottle? Don't you think that lack of action makes a statement? I would really like to know your opinion here. Did the Niners do the right thing by letting Brooks off with absolutely no discipline? Did they send the right message to the other players?

3) I don't know how many times this needs to be pointed out, but Ray McDonald's situation is in the early stages while AP and Hardy have been under investigation/scrutiny for months. I'm not saying the 49ers should not take action once charges are brought, I'm just saying everyone just has to wait a week or 2 for the DA to make it's case,

Your hiding behind the letter of the law just like your FO. It is never to early to do the right thing and if they cannot stand up right now and support their player they should be doing something about it. Don't be critical of outsiders thinking less of your organization when they have set a pattern and are giving no reason to believe they are about to change. At least not when the pattern is one of ignoring violent crimes or crimes with potential to harm. Does someone need to die before they put their foot down? Would you be surprised if one of your players drunkenly ran over and killed someone? Because if you would be then you would be the only one. I think most would just question which players house party they were leaving when it happened.

4) as a 49ers fan, your weird obsession of wanting Ray off the field makes it seem like you don't think other teams can hold the 49ers jock when Ray is on the field.. See how 2 can play that game? This isn't about the 49ers trying to protect their star player or protect their chances of a playoff run. We are in the early stages of all this and at this moment it doesn't make sense to make irrational decisions just to appease a riled up fan base

I don't want him on the field unless your FO can confidently stand behind him and support him. If they are not capable of doing that then they should not be marching him onto the field. Yes the Seahawks did exactly that with Lynch and I am using that as a point of reference. They don't have to be silent and cause everyone to question their ethics, thay could suggest they have reason to believe he is not the horrible person being portrayed in the public eye right now.

I forgot about, Culliver, so yes he should be included in this as well. As far as, Aldon, he obviously has screwed up, but the only incident I would consider "violent" was the allegations of him shooting a gun at the sky to disperse a party. In all of his crimes, it's not like he he has had a mental state of intentionally trying to hurt someone. Sure, driving drunk could have injured someone or worse, but he didn't have the culpable intent that has been in the spotlight

As far as AP and Hardy, you are asking the 49ers to go further and beyond then what the Vikings and Panthers had done. Those teams have known of the allegations for months. It's been 2 weeks with Ray. If you can name a situation where someone was cut before charge have been brought, I would love to compare the precedent.


There are some merits to not publicly defending or advocating for a player, as you are asking the 49ers to do. Right now, they don't want to influence or tamper the investigations. I get that that saying, "we believe in Ray's innocence" isn't all the harmful, but you don't know the circumstances of the situation. Maybe Ray's attorney requested the 49ers don't make a comment. Maybe SJPD asked for the same thing. Maybe the 49ers realize that even if they undoubtedly, 100% believe in Ray's innocence, it would be foolish, IN THIS CURRENT CLIMATE, to publicly defend someone of these type of allegations.

Let it play out, and if he is charged then you can see your hated team either cut or suspend McDonald

 

[Weadoption]

Niners hated?
Pshhhhh
Did u not see the Cowboys game?

 

[rigelian]

I've been reading the back and forth on this through out this thread. My take, unless the 49ers have more information than the rest of us do, I have no problem with them letting Ray McDonald play. The Ray McDonald is a different situation than AP or Hardy. In both those cases there has been either an indictment or a court proceeding that found that in the case of the indictment there was a crime and AP likely did it or in the court proceeding a finding by a judge that Hardy did it beyond a reasonable doubt. In McDonald's case there is only an arrest and allegedly some evidence of bruising on his fiance arms and neck. We have no idea how the bruising was caused. We have an arrest, but in the case of domestic violence the police will arrest someone just to remove them from each other for awhile. He has not been charged by the DA office.

Now mind you at this point the whole situation is a public relations issue. Stopping McDonald from playing at this stage does nothing to reduce the risk of domestic violence, it does nothing to help those who have been victims of domestic violence. It is not a moral issue.

At this stage I think the 49ers are reasonable in allowing him to play, they would be reasonable to suspend him (with pay) as well.

What I do find troubling is not the football team. I still remember the Ahmad Brooks situation and the disgusting decision not to prosecute by someone still not named. Given this I have no problem with the NFL pursuing its own independent investigation in determining whether it will suspend a player or not.

 

[SeaChase]

Not if he's in jail
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300000 ... ce-charges

 

[Largent80]

In other news Ray McDonald says Harbaugh will coach this Sunday.

 

[Popeyejones]

What I do find troubling is not the football team. I still remember the Ahmad Brooks situation and the disgusting decision not to prosecute by someone still not named. Given this I have no problem with the NFL pursuing its own independent investigation in determining whether it will suspend a player or not.

Not excusing Brooks (by a loooooooong shot), but two things on this:

1) The "someone still not named" who decided not to prosecute is named Karyn Sinunu-Towery. She publicly explained to reporters precisely why her office decided not to prosecute. Where'd you get the idea that she wasn't named? The case was investigated twice by the D.A.'s office and twice they decided it wasn't winnable, with Sinunu Towery releasing a summary of their decision after the second review of it due to the public nature of the case.

2) As for her "disgusting decision not to prosecute," as Asst. D.A. Sinunu-Towery explained and as was publicly released in the D.A. summary of the case, it would be very hard to convict because:

A) The D.A.'s office felt that Brooks could legitimately pursue a self-defense defense given that Lamar Divens had attacked Brooks and thrown him down a month earlier, substantially decreasing the likelihood of a convcition.

B) In the police investigation it was discovered that Divens had blackmailed Brooks for 1 million dollars in order to not cooperate, substantially decreasing his credibility and the likelihood of a conviction.

C) Divens repeatedly flip-flopped on his willingness to cooperate, substantially decreasing his credibility and the likelihood of a conviction.

D) The story that Divens' gave about what happened that could be prosecuted was contradicted by the witnesses, and when he was cooperating he kept changing his story, substantially decreasing his credibility and the likelihood of conviction.

It's worth pointing out that in the summary Sinunu-Towery explicitly stated that the lack of prosecuting the case should not be misread as an excuse for Brooks' actions, and instead it simply came down to the case being unwinnable for the four reasons cited above.

We can wag our fingers at Brooks in the court of public opinion all we want (and I'll wag right along with you) and we can even condemn the 9ers org for their own lack of action, but I honestly don't know where you're getting your above statement from. The decision not to prosecute by the D.A. was FAR from the underground and anonymous conspiracy you're making it out to be.

 

[Popeyejones]

In other news, it's worth pointing out that now both House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (from the 8th in CA) and Ca Lieutenant Governor (and former S.F. Mayor) Gavin Newsom have publicly condemned the 9ers for allowing McDonald to play.

The stakes have really, really risen. Unless the team (and D.A.) know something everyone else doesn't, the 9ers are going to come out looking REAAAAAALLLY, REALLLLY bad on this one.

If the D.A. does decide to prosecute there's no way at all they can go on without suspending him. It would just be crazy to do so.

It's gotten to the point where anything except for the awful rumor circulating* (which I AM NOT supporting or saying is true) is just going to blow up in the team's face in a gigantic way.


*That McDonald's GF was pregnant and drunk, and the bruises came from him restraining her from attacking him because he tried to stop her from drinking more. Again I AM NOT IN ANY WAY suggesting this is true, it's just the only version of what happened that night that could absolve the team from what's looking like a really awful and shortsighted stance on this.

 

[marko358]

Not if he's in jail
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300000 ... ce-charges

Am I missing something here? Isn't this the original article that came out a few weeks ago when the news first broke? :229031_shrug:

 

[Laloosh]

What I do find troubling is not the football team. I still remember the Ahmad Brooks situation and the disgusting decision not to prosecute by someone still not named. Given this I have no problem with the NFL pursuing its own independent investigation in determining whether it will suspend a player or not.

Not excusing Brooks (by a loooooooong shot), but two things on this:

1) The "someone still not named" who decided not to prosecute is named Karyn Sinunu-Towery. She publicly explained to reporters precisely why her office decided not to prosecute. Where'd you get the idea that she wasn't named? The case was investigated twice by the D.A.'s office and twice they decided it wasn't winnable, with Sinunu Towery releasing a summary of their decision after the second review of it due to the public nature of the case.

2) As for her "disgusting decision not to prosecute," as Asst. D.A. Sinunu-Towery explained and as was publicly released in the D.A. summary of the case, it would be very hard to convict because:

A) The D.A.'s office felt that Brooks could legitimately pursue a self-defense defense given that Lamar Divens had attacked Brooks and thrown him down a month earlier, substantially decreasing the likelihood of a convcition.

B) In the police investigation it was discovered that Divens had blackmailed Brooks for 1 million dollars in order to not cooperate, substantially decreasing his credibility and the likelihood of a conviction.

C) Divens repeatedly flip-flopped on his willingness to cooperate, substantially decreasing his credibility and the likelihood of a conviction.

D) The story that Divens' gave about what happened that could be prosecuted was contradicted by the witnesses, and when he was cooperating he kept changing his story, substantially decreasing his credibility and the likelihood of conviction.

It's worth pointing out that in the summary Sinunu-Towery explicitly stated that the lack of prosecuting the case should not be misread as an excuse for Brooks' actions, and instead it simply came down to the case being unwinnable for the four reasons cited above.

We can wag our fingers at Brooks in the court of public opinion all we want (and I'll wag right along with you) and we can even condemn the 9ers org for their own lack of action, but I honestly don't know where you're getting your above statement from. The decision not to prosecute by the D.A. was FAR from the underground and anonymous conspiracy you're making it out to be.

Thanks for providing that info. Wasn't aware that they had provided details about their decision. Team still should have taken action. Smashing a bottle over the head of an idiot with no morale compass is still ridiculous and potentially deadly.

 

[Largent80]

Hahaha, maybe Pelosi should coach.

 

[Popeyejones]

Laloosh --

100% agreed that the team still should have taken action, particularly given that it was an action that not only created bad press and is inexcusable, but was also between two players on the team.

 

[Marvin49]

In other news, it's worth pointing out that now both House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (from the 8th in CA) and Ca Lieutenant Governor (and former S.F. Mayor) Gavin Newsom have publicly condemned the 9ers for allowing McDonald to play.

The stakes have really, really risen. Unless the team (and D.A.) know something everyone else doesn't, the 9ers are going to come out looking REAAAAAALLLY, REALLLLY bad on this one.

If the D.A. does decide to prosecute there's no way at all they can go on without suspending him. It would just be crazy to do so.

It's gotten to the point where anything except for the awful rumor circulating* (which I AM NOT supporting or saying is true) is just going to blow up in the team's face in a gigantic way.


*That McDonald's GF was pregnant and drunk, and the bruises came from him restraining her from attacking him because he tried to stop her from drinking more. Again I AM NOT IN ANY WAY suggesting this is true, it's just the only version of what happened that night that could absolve the team from what's looking like a really awful and shortsighted stance on this.

I agree.

That's why I think they know something and that was only enforced this weekend when people told Ian Rapaport and Peter King that the team believes McDonalds version of the story and that if he's lying they'll cut him.

I do want to say something here tho....I HATE Gavin Newsome. Pelosi? eh...whatever. She can say what she wants to say, but Newsome?

Dude is slime.

Lets get this straight. This is a Lieutenant Governor who wants to be Governor and is making a political stand to score points. Pelosi might be doing the same....but that much I can forgive. Politicians do what they do and look for points to make a statement and a name for themselves.

The part that pisses me off is Newsomes timing. He didn't make an issue of this in week 1. He didn't make an issue of this when Adrian Peterson was indicted. No. This guy was the mayor of SF when they lost the 49ers to Santa Clara. He chose the DAY OF THE FIRST REGULAR SEASON GAME AT LEVIS to make his public stance. He made his statement in concert with the opening of the project he publically denounced from day 1.

Slime. Also slept with his best friends wife. Real character guy there.

 

[Laloosh]

In other news, it's worth pointing out that now both House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (from the 8th in CA) and Ca Lieutenant Governor (and former S.F. Mayor) Gavin Newsom have publicly condemned the 9ers for allowing McDonald to play.

The stakes have really, really risen. Unless the team (and D.A.) know something everyone else doesn't, the 9ers are going to come out looking REAAAAAALLLY, REALLLLY bad on this one.

If the D.A. does decide to prosecute there's no way at all they can go on without suspending him. It would just be crazy to do so.

It's gotten to the point where anything except for the awful rumor circulating* (which I AM NOT supporting or saying is true) is just going to blow up in the team's face in a gigantic way.


*That McDonald's GF was pregnant and drunk, and the bruises came from him restraining her from attacking him because he tried to stop her from drinking more. Again I AM NOT IN ANY WAY suggesting this is true, it's just the only version of what happened that night that could absolve the team from what's looking like a really awful and shortsighted stance on this.

I agree.

That's why I think they know something and that was only enforced this weekend when people told Ian Rapaport and Peter King that the team believes McDonalds version of the story and that if he's lying they'll cut him.

I do want to say something here tho....I HATE Gavin Newsome. Pelosi? eh...whatever. She can say what she wants to say, but Newsome?

Dude is slime.

Lets get this straight. This is a Lieutenant Governor who wants to be Governor and is making a political stand to score points. Pelosi might be doing the same....but that much I can forgive. Politicians do what they do and look for points to make a statement and a name for themselves.

The part that pisses me off is Newsomes timing. He didn't make an issue of this in week 1. He didn't make an issue of this when Adrian Peterson was indicted. No. This guy was the mayor of SF when they lost the 49ers to Santa Clara. He chose the DAY OF THE FIRST REGULAR SEASON GAME AT LEVIS to make his public stance. He made his statement in concert with the opening of the project he publically denounced from day 1.

Slime. Also slept with his best friends wife. Real character guy there.

 

[lsheldon]

I was wondering what happened during McDonald's 9/15 court date. It looks like it has been pushed out now. Wonder what's taking so long for the investigation if he didn't do anything?

A tentative Monday court date for 49ers defensive lineman Ray McDonald, which was scheduled after his domestic violence arrest, has been canceled because the case remains under investigation by San Jose police, officials said Friday.

McDonald, 30, was arrested about 2:45 a.m. Aug. 31 for allegedly causing "visible injuries" to a woman at his home on the 2500 block of Bentley Ridge Drive in San Jose. He was later released from jail on $25,000 bond and had been given a court date Monday.

But Santa Clara County prosecutors, who must decide whether to charge McDonald, have yet to receive documents about the case from police, and so a new court date will be scheduled for McDonald to appear.

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/49e ... 751397.php

 

[Laloosh]

I was wondering what happened during McDonald's 9/15 court date. It looks like it has been pushed out now. Wonder what's taking so long for the investigation if he didn't do anything?

A tentative Monday court date for 49ers defensive lineman Ray McDonald, which was scheduled after his domestic violence arrest, has been canceled because the case remains under investigation by San Jose police, officials said Friday.

McDonald, 30, was arrested about 2:45 a.m. Aug. 31 for allegedly causing "visible injuries" to a woman at his home on the 2500 block of Bentley Ridge Drive in San Jose. He was later released from jail on $25,000 bond and had been given a court date Monday.

But Santa Clara County prosecutors, who must decide whether to charge McDonald, have yet to receive documents about the case from police, and so a new court date will be scheduled for McDonald to appear.

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/49e ... 751397.php

As was pointed out to me by a friend who happens to be a cop in California, DV investigations are often met with uncooperative victims. If a 3rd party doesn't come forward with a solid eye witness account, charges are likely to be dropped (or never filed). He described some pretty ridiculous scenarios that he's been called on. If they don't have a solid case (high probability of conviction), RayMac will walk, period.

As has been stated in previous posts, if the cops are called for DV, someone is going to jail. Charges are not a given however.

 

[Marvin49]

In other news, it's worth pointing out that now both House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (from the 8th in CA) and Ca Lieutenant Governor (and former S.F. Mayor) Gavin Newsom have publicly condemned the 9ers for allowing McDonald to play.

The stakes have really, really risen. Unless the team (and D.A.) know something everyone else doesn't, the 9ers are going to come out looking REAAAAAALLLY, REALLLLY bad on this one.

If the D.A. does decide to prosecute there's no way at all they can go on without suspending him. It would just be crazy to do so.

It's gotten to the point where anything except for the awful rumor circulating* (which I AM NOT supporting or saying is true) is just going to blow up in the team's face in a gigantic way.


*That McDonald's GF was pregnant and drunk, and the bruises came from him restraining her from attacking him because he tried to stop her from drinking more. Again I AM NOT IN ANY WAY suggesting this is true, it's just the only version of what happened that night that could absolve the team from what's looking like a really awful and shortsighted stance on this.

I agree.

That's why I think they know something and that was only enforced this weekend when people told Ian Rapaport and Peter King that the team believes McDonalds version of the story and that if he's lying they'll cut him.

I do want to say something here tho....I HATE Gavin Newsome. Pelosi? eh...whatever. She can say what she wants to say, but Newsome?

Dude is slime.

Lets get this straight. This is a Lieutenant Governor who wants to be Governor and is making a political stand to score points. Pelosi might be doing the same....but that much I can forgive. Politicians do what they do and look for points to make a statement and a name for themselves.

The part that pisses me off is Newsomes timing. He didn't make an issue of this in week 1. He didn't make an issue of this when Adrian Peterson was indicted. No. This guy was the mayor of SF when they lost the 49ers to Santa Clara. He chose the DAY OF THE FIRST REGULAR SEASON GAME AT LEVIS to make his public stance. He made his statement in concert with the opening of the project he publically denounced from day 1.

Slime. Also slept with his best friends wife. Real character guy there.

I know you are giving me a rough time, but it WAS reported by both Rapaport and King.

That doesn't mean he's innocent. It means the Niners THINK he's innocent...which as I've been saying for awhile now is the only thing that makes their behavior make any sense. If he's not innocent tho it makes them look bad. REAL bad.

Also, Gavin Newsome is scum. Pondscum. Couldn't stand him when he was mayor of SF and can't stand him now...and I'm a democrat.

 

[Marvin49]

I was wondering what happened during McDonald's 9/15 court date. It looks like it has been pushed out now. Wonder what's taking so long for the investigation if he didn't do anything?

A tentative Monday court date for 49ers defensive lineman Ray McDonald, which was scheduled after his domestic violence arrest, has been canceled because the case remains under investigation by San Jose police, officials said Friday.

McDonald, 30, was arrested about 2:45 a.m. Aug. 31 for allegedly causing "visible injuries" to a woman at his home on the 2500 block of Bentley Ridge Drive in San Jose. He was later released from jail on $25,000 bond and had been given a court date Monday.

But Santa Clara County prosecutors, who must decide whether to charge McDonald, have yet to receive documents about the case from police, and so a new court date will be scheduled for McDonald to appear.

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/49e ... 751397.php

As was pointed out to me by a friend who happens to be a cop in California, DV investigations are often met with uncooperative victims. If a 3rd party doesn't come forward with a solid eye witness account, charges are likely to be dropped (or never filed). He described some pretty ridiculous scenarios that he's been called on. If they don't have a solid case (high probability of conviction), RayMac will walk, period.

As has been stated in previous posts, if the cops are called for DV, someone is going to jail. Charges are not a given however.

Correct.

It was also reported that this taking so long is not uncommon given the number of people that were at the party and could be called in to be questioned. 50-75% of the team was there than night along with wives and girlfriends.

 

[theENGLISHseahawk]

Classic Marvin in here.

 

[Largent80]

Here ya go.....http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/A ... 07391.html

 

[NewJerseyHawk]

McDonald has played his last game for the Niners......