HawkShack.com

He is headed to the Patriots. It looks like he was demanding more money and the Eagles decided to ship him to NE. I really liked him as a player but it seems like he must have been a pain in the locker room for the coaches. He had a decent year last season, with 9 sacks but that is two teams that decided to get rid of him even though his cap hit wasn't too bad.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/2619 ... s-possible

Bilicheck wont put up with his crap at all!

If you read down in the article, you'll find this:

Bennett still faces a charge of felony injury to the elderly after he allegedly shoved his way onto the field to celebrate the Patriots' -- and his brother's -- Super Bowl LI win. Among the people he allegedly pushed through was a 66-year-old paraplegic woman.
The next court date is slated for March 27, according to court records. Bennett's attorney has stated that his client will enter a not guilty plea if the case goes to trial.

This could be one of the reasons why the Eagles are thinking of trading him. If Bennett is found guilty and/or admits to wrongdoing, he's going to be facing some pretty stiff discipline from the league.

And to think that Bennett was once our nominee for the Walter Payton Man of the Year award. smh.

He's a clown and a race baiter. So how does Smollett get like 20 charges against him and Bennett goes to Vegas and in a rant decides to accuse the police of mistreating him 'because he's 'black'... when video clearly showed him to be ignoring direct commands to 'stop' by the police after a shooting at the MGM and not once was he abused or swore at. His actions should of resulted in charges. Las Vegas police and prosecutors are evidently too nice.

And how does that not get to the NFL office for a suspension? Lying to the police and then compounding it by lying in multiple TV interviews?

jshawaii22 wrote:He's a clown and a race baiter. So how does Smollett get like 20 charges against him and Bennett goes to Vegas and in a rant decides to accuse the police of mistreating him 'because he's 'black'... when video clearly showed him to be ignoring direct commands to 'stop' by the police after a shooting at the MGM and not once was he abused or swore at. His actions should of resulted in charges. Las Vegas police and prosecutors are evidently too nice.

And how does that not get to the NFL office for a suspension? Lying to the police and then compounding it by lying in multiple TV interviews?

I'm no Michael Bennett supporter, but there's simply no way his complaints regarding the LV police is analogous to Jussie Smollett's Chicago situation. Yes, Bennett made some what appears to be false accusations, but unlike Smollett, he did not file a false police report, did not lie to police when he was questioned, and did not hire others to commit a crime with him. What Bennett did was that he filed a charge, most likely false, accusing the LV police of singling him out for detainment based on his race. It is not a crime to file a charge that is subsequently found to be false, which it never was as Bennett wisely decided not to pursue it as the facts would indicate otherwise.

There might have been cause for the league to look into the matter to see if there wasn't anything in the personal conduct clause of the CBA that Bennett might have violated, but I doubt that they would have come to any conclusion that would have resulted in a reprimand. Even though I agree with your overall assessment of his character as a race baiter, he had a right to question his treatment.

His claims of bad "treatment' was shown by video to be a total fabrication (that's a lie) -- although it wasn't a conspiracy, as he didn't implicate anyone, the motivation was the same at Smollett's -- make up a fake dialog that accuses "white" people of race based crimes and then use it for your own benefit. In Bennett's case, that would be to further the "I support Kaepernick" dialog.

The only reason Bennett didn't follow up down that road were the videos that became public within a couple of days. I could be wrong, but I don't remember his apologizing to the LV police or to the MGM security, although you never know -- it may of been in private.

jshawaii22 wrote:His claims of bad "treatment' was shown by video to be a total fabrication (that's a lie) -- although it wasn't a conspiracy, as he didn't implicate anyone, the motivation was the same at Smollett's -- make up a fake dialog that accuses "white" people of race based crimes and then use it for your own benefit. In Bennett's case, that would be to further the "I support Kaepernick" dialog.

The motive may have been the same but unlike Smollett, Bennett didn't break any laws. Bennett, or anyone else for that matter, can say what he or she wants 'about' the police and his treatment, including fabrications, and many others do just that. But Bennett didn't lie 'to' the police like Smollett did. Had they put Bennett on the witness stand and he said some of the things he originally claimed, then he'd be in deep caca.

jshawaii22 wrote:The only reason Bennett didn't follow up down that road were the videos that became public within a couple of days. I could be wrong, but I don't remember his apologizing to the LV police or to the MGM security, although you never know -- it may of been in private.

It wasn't too long after Bennett's threatened lawsuit that an active shooter murdered dozens, and acts of heroism by LV police and other first responders dominated the news for weeks. That could very well have been why Bennett decided not to pursue his claim. Frankly, I wish he would have pursued it so he could have been exposed for the lying sack of chit that he is.

The motive may have been the same but unlike Smollett, Bennett didn't break any laws.

Yup. Smollett is charged with *sixteen felonies*, in fact, and could be facing some serious prison time.

Bennett was at least not so consumed with his victim narrative that he made that stupid a decision.

Frankly, I wish he would have pursued it so he could have been exposed for the lying sack of chit that he is.

I remember thinking that at the time, too (and we may have broached it in here).

I chuckled that, suddenly, the LVPD hadn't treated him so poorly, that, suddenly, the White Supremacist Cops™ didn't need to be exposed and taken out of the police force after all.

Much to everyone's surprise.

Say what you want about Mr MB but signing with the Pats almost guarantees a SB game.

Uppercut wrote:Say what you want about Mr MB but signing with the Pats almost guarantees a SB game.

Good point- I guess he wasn't a liar after all.

The biggest difference I see between the two are:

Smollett was premeditated and he violated federal mail fraud and terrorist acts by sending the crushed up tylenol to himself through the mail.

MB was caught in the spur of the moment incident and tried to run to avoid being exposed in LV during the season. THEN he tried to cover it up when he was exposed by claiming mistreatment. (Still should have been prosecuted in my opinion but not near the felonies that Smollett committed)

idhawkman wrote:The biggest difference I see between the two are:

Smollett was premeditated and he violated federal mail fraud and terrorist acts by sending the crushed up tylenol to himself through the mail.

MB was caught in the spur of the moment incident and tried to run to avoid being exposed in LV during the season. THEN he tried to cover it up when he was exposed by claiming mistreatment. (Still should have been prosecuted in my opinion but not near the felonies that Smollett committed)

I'm not sure what Bennett should have been prosecuted for. Lots of people have made false claims about their treatment by police. Are you going to prosecute every person that makes a silly objection as to their treatment?

If Bennett gave a sworn statement or if he wasted valuable resources by sending the police on a wild goose chase by filing a false report ala Smollett, then yes. But to my knowledge, Bennett gave no such information to police. He was simply whining about it in public as so many have done.

(Still should have been prosecuted in my opinion but not near the felonies that Smollett committed)

Perpetual victimhood isn't illegal. In fact it's a form of currency in many circles these days (which is why Smollett was willing to risk what he did, why some other guy literally burnt his house down and killed all his pets, and so on- there is nothing so valuable as being seen as a Victim™).

Idahawkman wrote:(Still should have been prosecuted in my opinion but not near the felonies that Smollett committed)

burrrton wrote:Perpetual victimhood isn't illegal. In fact it's a form of currency in many circles these days (which is why Smollett was willing to risk what he did, why some other guy literally burnt his house down and killed all his pets, and so on- there is nothing so valuable as being seen as a Victim™).

Sadly, that's all too true.

We might be getting a little too off topic, but IMO Smollett calculated that he could increase his marketability by being the victim of a hate crime. It was as much about dollars and cents to him as it was victimhood. Bennett might be a little different, seems more of the rebel without a cause type, that every action has to be of some sort of sinister origin. I don't think he was doing it to advance his career.

It was as much about dollars and cents to him as it was victimhood.

That him playing the victimized gay man increases his marketability (even if only in his opinion) is my point.

It was as much about dollars and cents to him as it was victimhood.

burrrton wrote:That him playing the victimized gay man increases his marketability (even if only in his opinion) is my point.

And your point is spot on. I was drawing a distinction between victimhood as an ego defense mechanism (Bennett) and victimhood as a means to increase financial marketability (Smollett).

RiverDog wrote:
I'm not sure what Bennett should have been prosecuted for. Lots of people have made false claims about their treatment by police. Are you going to prosecute every person that makes a silly objection as to their treatment?

If Bennett gave a sworn statement or if he wasted valuable resources by sending the police on a wild goose chase by filing a false report ala Smollett, then yes. But to my knowledge, Bennett gave no such information to police. He was simply whining about it in public as so many have done.

I'm pretty sure the LVPD spent a ton of time gathering the videos to disprove MBs accusations. I'm not sure if he actually filed a claim but it seems that he did.

MB claiming the PD assaulted him is different from Smollett claiming anonymous MAGA hat wearing mystery people assaulted him, HOW?

RiverDog wrote:... but IMO Smollett calculated that he could increase his marketability by being the victim of a hate crime. It was as much about dollars and cents to him as it was victimhood. Bennett might be a little different, seems more of the rebel without a cause type, that every action has to be of some sort of sinister origin. I don't think he was doing it to advance his career.

I see MBs claims as the same as Smollett's in that MB was trying to preserve his career by not being caught in Vegas when he had no business being there and fans would have let him know that save for his claim. I also seem to remember that MB was going to file a civil suit against the LVPD for a few mil. but I'm too un-interested in MB to go dig for it.

RiverDog wrote:And your point is spot on. I was drawing a distinction between victimhood as an ego defense mechanism (Bennett) and victimhood as a means to increase financial marketability (Smollett).

Gotcha.

MB claiming the PD assaulted him is different from Smollett claiming anonymous MAGA hat wearing mystery people assaulted him, HOW?

He wasn't making claims he was "assaulted"- he was merely mischaracterizing his detention and treatment as over-the-top and racially motivated (both of which proved to be BS).

Idhawkman --- MB was at a legit fight in Vegas and he ran when some Hip-Hop idiots decided to start shooting each other in the hallway between the MGM Arena and the hotel. It was his decision to try to take advantage of the situation and promote himself to 'relevant' in the media by announcing in a press conference his total BS story.

Don't confuse his pending litigation over bullying his way onto the field at the Super Bowl, which we haven't discussed yet, but is another case of being total moron and deserving to be prosecuted, yet so far nada. Sometimes it pays to be famous and other times (like the payola for college scandal) it doesn't.

MB claiming the PD assaulted him is different from Smollett claiming anonymous MAGA hat wearing mystery people assaulted him, HOW?

burrrton wrote:He wasn't making claims he was "assaulted"- he was merely mischaracterizing his detention and treatment as over-the-top and racially motivated (both of which proved to be BS).

Yup. Bennett never complained about being "roughed up". His accusation was that he was singled out for detention because he was black. 10 minutes or so in the back of a squad car with a video of him shaking hands with a cop as he was released would have made a police brutality charge easy to resolve.

I suppose if you got real technical, you might be able to say that Bennett caused the LVPD a few man hours reviewing/preparing for a case he was threatening to file, but it would have been a huge stretch. In any event, it pales in comparison to Smollet's case that took weeks of interviews, reviewing security camera footage, analyzing the phony letter, and so on. Plus Smollet actually filed a police report. Bennett never filed anything. All Bennett was doing was blowing a bunch of hot air, which is his first amendment right. We'd have a never ending litany of charges if the cops pursued every false statement made in public by a citizen.

Regarding the incident where Bennett allegedly barged his way onto the field at the SB and in the process, injured a handicapped fan, I don't know enough about the case to venture an opinion. If he's found guilty or even if he settles out of court, he'll almost certainly be facing a suspension for violating the personal conduct clause in the CBA.

it wasn't a fan, she was a licenced, contracted security officer, checking credentials, who happened to be handicapped and standing post somewhere at one of the entrances to the field. Irrelevant to the issue, but interesting he now plays for the team that he blasted onto the field to be with.

jshawaii22 wrote:it wasn't a fan, she was a licenced, contracted security officer, checking credentials, who happened to be handicapped and standing post somewhere at one of the entrances to the field. Irrelevant to the issue, but interesting he now plays for the team that he blasted onto the field to be with.

I haven't been following the story that close so I didn't realize she was a security guard. That probably enhances the credibility of the charge than had it been some random fan that he is accused of injuring.

The trial date is scheduled for March 27th. The incident is over a year old.