Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >

NFL implementing Domestic Violence policy too late?

Avatar

Posted: 08/15/2014 10:04 AM

NFL implementing Domestic Violence policy too late? 


The NFL is planning to toughen standards in cases of domestic violence soon, according to a source with knowledge of the process, and is making it a priority by soliciting advice from experts in the field about a wholesale overhaul of its policy and practices.

LINK

Last edited 08/15/2014 10:36 AM by plannb23

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 08/15/2014 10:08 AM

Re: NFL implementing Domestic Violence policy too late? 


It's too late for the Ray Rice case but, sadly, it's never too late to implement such a thing because there will be more cases in the future of this.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 08/15/2014 10:10 AM

Re: NFL implementing Domestic Violence policy too late? 


From my perspective I look at this and say to the NFL, you're too late.  You've missed the bus.  Domestic Violence isn't something new to our country, and there have been numerous accounts of domestic violence that have been recorded recently and only after the Ray Rice incident blows up do you look at the outcry and say gosh this is something we should pay attention to?  Shame on them for not being proactive.

That said, you're right, it's never too late to do the right thing.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 08/15/2014 10:31 AM

Re: NFL implementing Domestic Violence policy too late? 


I completely agree that it's "too late" in that sense.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 08/15/2014 10:40 AM

Re: NFL implementing Domestic Violence policy too late? 


How about this one though Minstrel?

"In July, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell issued a two-game suspension to Rice, which outraged many fans and got the attention of congressional representatives and even Maine governor Paul LePage, who wrote a letter threatening to boycott the league."

While I love the sentiment here, what in the world is the Maine governor bringing to the table?  The entire state of Maine has 1,328,302 which is roughly twice that of the "city" of San Francisco, and there isn't a single NFL team in Maine.   noidea   LOL
Minstrel wrote: I completely agree that it's "too late" in that sense.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 08/15/2014 11:09 AM

Re: NFL implementing Domestic Violence policy too late? 


weren't the raiders considering a move to Maine...? seems like a good fit for them. lol

back on topic- i have to agree that it is amazing how seemingly late this is in coming.

in addition to REAL tough league punishment, i would like to see them mandate that any future offenders will have to spend 15 minutes handcuffed in a windowless room with just me and my baseball bat. breaking some elbows and knee caps sounds like a fair punishment to me.

i have ZERO respect for a man who raises his hand to a woman. unless you're in immediate danger of losing your LIFE, you never do that to a woman.

"You are either getting better or you are getting worse; you never stay the same."

Last edited 08/15/2014 11:10 AM by higherwarrior

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 08/15/2014 1:05 PM

Re: NFL implementing Domestic Violence policy too late? 



plannb23 wrote: How about this one though Minstrel?

"In July, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell issued a two-game suspension to Rice, which outraged many fans and got the attention of congressional representatives and even Maine governor Paul LePage, who wrote a letter threatening to boycott the league."

While I love the sentiment here, what in the world is the Maine governor bringing to the table?  The entire state of Maine has 1,328,302 which is roughly twice that of the "city" of San Francisco, and there isn't a single NFL team in Maine.   noidea   LOL

Ha. Well, I guess you can only do what you can do.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 08/15/2014 1:06 PM

Re: NFL implementing Domestic Violence policy too late? 



higherwarrior wrote: i would like to see them mandate that any future offenders will have to spend 15 minutes handcuffed in a windowless room with just me and my baseball bat.


Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 08/15/2014 1:24 PM

Re: NFL implementing Domestic Violence policy too late? 


roflmao.gif
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 08/15/2014 1:35 PM

Re: NFL implementing Domestic Violence policy too late? 


It's not to late to implement the new rule but according to the collective bargaining rules in place he was fine accordingly mainly because Rice had no priors.  The new rule will element this from ever happening again.....period.

LoneStar Niner
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 08/16/2014 9:33 AM

Re: NFL implementing Domestic Violence policy too late? 



guysix wrote: It's not to late to implement the new rule but according to the collective bargaining rules in place he was fine accordingly mainly because Rice had no priors.  The new rule will element this from ever happening again.....period.

I do feel there is a sliver of hypocrisy here, though.  The NFL never would have done this if not for the public outrage over the Ray Rice suspension.  To some extend, the outrage is justified as Goodell missed the boat (something he seldom does), however, on the other hand, while domestic violence is one of the world's most horrible crimes, Ray Rice had no prior issues with the law or the league.  He was  first time offender.  Goodell would have been far harsher if something like this crossed his desk and the guy had a history of behavior.  Again, the past matters, a man with prior disciplinary issues gets a much harsher sentence than a guy whose been clean and this is the first time he's come on the league's radar.  

This is a basic principle of criminal justice: harsher punishments go to repeat offenders.  You try to get first time offenders help instead of a harsh sentence so that they don't do it again.  Domestic Violence is a horrific crime, but on a human suffering scale, there are far worse crimes.  Those ******** on wall street hurt hundreds of millions of people and nearly collapsed the global economy.  One guy went to jail, and that was because he didn't have a good enough lawyer.  On a question of scale of suffering inflicted, it is unconscienable what happened with Wall Street.  It's like the Joker would say (from the Dark Knight): "a bunch of rich white guys nearly collapse the global economy and inflict suffering on hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people, and no one goes to prison, a few big names pay a fine, but the world goes on, but one black guy with no priors commits domestic violence and the whole world loses its mind."  

The reason is simple: rich white guys have much better lobbyists and influence peddlers.  There really isn't a "pro-domestic violence" contingent (well, maybe the reddit men's rights subred), but due process of the law and looking at all the facts, and coming to a reasonable punishment (I felt Goodell's punishment of Rice was a good one, considering there's no prior history.  If Rice had done this kind of thing before, I'd be far more pissed off at the punishment he got) is not a fault of our legal society, its a feature.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 08/16/2014 11:25 AM

Re: NFL implementing Domestic Violence policy too late? 


The league shouldn't be looking so much at whether or not it is a first time offense, but the severity of the issue. First time domestic violence is worse than a 4th violation or more of something drug, alcohol, or peds and it should carry the weight in the form of punishment.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 08/16/2014 11:38 AM

Re: NFL implementing Domestic Violence policy too late? 


I think there should be "base" punishments for each type of offense, the base being what you get for a first-time offense. And the base punishment should be different for each type, depending on the severity (mostly along a damage-to-others spectrum, IMO). Then, repeat offender punishments scale up from the base.

That could mean that the base for domestic abuse could be 8 games while the base for, say, marijuana use could be 1 game. A third offense for marijuana might get you to a 4-5 game suspension (I, personally, don't think marijuana should carry a penalty at all, but the NFL doesn't agree) which is still lower than the first offense punishment for domestic abuse (8 games, noted previously) while a third offense for domestic abuse might be a permanent suspension from the league.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 08/16/2014 12:15 PM

Re: NFL implementing Domestic Violence policy too late? 


My point is this is Ray Rice's first offense, of any kind, period. Okay, so we want to do base-line punishments for different offenses, what about the linear combinations? What if a guy gets busted on a marijuna charge first (which I agree should not be illegal, they aren't PEDs, and the league really has no business policing this, but it does. Do athletes who smoke or drink get suspensions too? Again, Alcohol and Tabacco have better lawyers and lobbyists, and that's about it.) then a domestic voilence assault? Does he get ten games? Twelve? What about a DUI? I think a DUI should carry an automatic suspension, because if you do it, you are recklessly endangering the lives of others. However, it doesn't. I think Aldon Smith should serve a 12 game suspension this season, minimum, not because what he did was specifically terrible, but because he has a long history of trouble.




Ray Rice was clean as a whistle, and then this happened. It does not excuse his behavior in any way, and there is no room for it, but, I also think the punishment has to fit the crime. This nation has a loooong history of stigmatizing actions it disagreed with. Domestic violence is one for which there is no sympathy, so its an easy thing to target. My question is this: why do we live in a society where people who do certain things, which are clearly bad, are demonized, and others, who do even worse things, aren't? There was a time, thirty years ago, when being gay was a much more horrible crime than domestic assault. Being gay has no victims, but people tried repeatedly to argue that it "hurts society as a whole", despite not being able to coherently explain how.



Tony Dungy, whose a class act all the way, said he wouldn't have drafted Michael Sam, but didn't say it was because he didn't think Sam could play in the NFL. Why wasn't Tony Dungy suspended from his job as a TV analyst? He's never had a prior problem with putting his foot in his mouth, and people have been punished for saying things which aren't nearly as bad as what Dungy said. Hate speech is a crime with a victim. Especially when someone as influential and well respected as Dungy is a voice of it. Dungy's comments could be argued to impact the lives of many people, on a small scale. Rice's actions impacted the life of one person on a massive scale. Which is worse? We tend to want to punish people who commit heinous acts with a directed target more than people who commit heinous acts directed towards a diffuse target.


People also confuse freedom of speech. There are those who argue that Dungy didn't commit a crime because he has freedom of speech. There is no such thing, except for in a limited context. The Constitution says that Congress shall make no law restricting freedom of speech, but A) there are obvious exceptions and B) this applies only to the government and not to private citizens or businesses. Your boss can fire you for saying something that hurts the company you work for, you can be sued for libel for saying something that injures a person. Why hasn't Dungy been hit with a libel suit? It can reasonably be claimed that what he said hurts the chances of openly gay men to play in the NFL. In fact, there's no doubt that someone as respected as Dungy saying what he did does in fact do this.




Yet Ray Rice, whose never had a problem before (which I why I tend to be lenient with Dungy too, even though I find his remark completely inappropriate, he's a first time offender) messes up and the whole world losses its mind. Domestic abuse is a serious crime, and deserves a serious penalty, but I'm not moralistic enough to say off-hand what it should be with respect to a person's football career. Times change, people change, attitudes change. It might very well be the case that, ten years from now, Minstrel's eight game suspension for first time offenders would become a lifetime ban, as attitudes about the matter change. Just like even twenty years ago, something like this would have been met with a shrug. I'm not prepared to go that far yet, but for a first time offender, I would say that Ray Rice should be suspended and should be required to get help. I would want to make sure nothing like this ever happens with him again. That would be my first priority.

Last edited 08/16/2014 12:17 PM by soda

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 08/16/2014 2:16 PM

Re: NFL implementing Domestic Violence policy too late? 



soda wrote: The reason is simple: rich white guys have much better lobbyists and influence peddlers. 
That's the most racist statement I have seen here. ohlord

You're saying that millionaire sports stars are unable to hire those same lawyers because they're black?

NFL players of all races have been getting away with, literally murder, since the NFL has been here no matter their financial situation.

Fans turn a blind eye just like the fake outrage in st louis over one dead black man and ignore the 82 people shot in Chicago, 14 fatally, a few weeks earlier.


Suffering and rejoicing 49er fan since '69!
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 08/16/2014 2:39 PM

Re: NFL implementing Domestic Violence policy too late? 



dea49 wrote:
Fans turn a blind eye just like the fake outrage in st louis over one dead black man and ignore the 82 people shot in Chicago, 14 fatally, a few weeks earlier.

I agree with you that we need stronger restrictions on guns.

Last edited 08/16/2014 2:40 PM by Minstrel

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 08/16/2014 2:44 PM

Re: NFL implementing Domestic Violence policy too late? 



Minstrel wrote:
dea49 wrote:
Fans turn a blind eye just like the fake outrage in st louis over one dead black man and ignore the 82 people shot in Chicago, 14 fatally, a few weeks earlier.

I agree with you that we need stronger restrictions on guns.
How many of those shot in chicago do you think were with "lawful" guns?


Suffering and rejoicing 49er fan since '69!
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 08/16/2014 2:53 PM

Re: NFL implementing Domestic Violence policy too late? 



dea49 wrote:
How many of those shot in chicago do you think were with "lawful" guns?

Who knows? Probably a great many shootings take place with legal guns. We're not talking about stealthy assassins with black market sniper rifles in most of these cases. People who shoot up public places and/or get into shoot-outs with the police are generally not aiming to avoid detection.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 08/16/2014 5:07 PM

Re: NFL implementing Domestic Violence policy too late? 



Minstrel wrote:
dea49 wrote:
How many of those shot in chicago do you think were with "lawful" guns?

Who knows? Probably a great many shootings take place with legal guns. We're not talking about stealthy assassins with black market sniper rifles in most of these cases. People who shoot up public places and/or get into shoot-outs with the police are generally not aiming to avoid detection.
How would you go about controlling guns yet respect the right to own one?


Suffering and rejoicing 49er fan since '69!
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 08/16/2014 7:10 PM

Re: NFL implementing Domestic Violence policy too late? 



soda wrote:
dea49 wrote:
soda wrote: The reason is simple: rich white guys have much better lobbyists and influence peddlers. 
That's the most racist statement I have seen here. ohlord

You're saying that millionaire sports stars are unable to hire those same lawyers because they're black?

NFL players of all races have been getting away with, literally murder, since the NFL has been here no matter their financial situation.

Fans turn a blind eye just like the fake outrage in st louis over one dead black man and ignore the 82 people shot in Chicago, 14 fatally, a few weeks earlier.
Two questions:A) how many of the people shot in Chicago were shot by a police officer, you know, the guys whose job it is to serve and protect? The outcry in St. Louis is very real because its the cops who did it, and people of color have been dealing with people in positions of authority abusing said authority for over 200 years. So yeah, they're touchy about it.  Mass shootings are a sad fact of life in modern America, but at least they tend to be race and gender neutral. A crazy person is just as likely to shoot one person as another, and it tends to be whoever is closest to the gun. At least crazy people don't discriminate. 





B) Yes, millionare ballplayers can hire good lawyers, but rich, white guys have institutional advantages. How many people who led to the near collapse of Wall Street had their legal lives turn into public show trials? If you have to think about that question, then you know the answer. On the other hand, how many pro ball players have their legal lives turned into public trials? Here's the problem with people's attention spans: guys doing brutal violent things get attention, but guys who do far more destructive and evil things, but which are non-violent, don't. Violence is what sells, but there are many ways to be far, far more destructive to society that don't involve violence at all. 



The biggest difference between rich, white guys and pro ball players who are black is that the former understand how to work the system and get away with it, while the later don't. If the NFL players, banded together with their counter-parts in other sports, music an entertainment and formed a massive super-pac dedicated to influence peddling, lobbying and greasing arms, they'd get the same benefits that the white collar crooks do. That's why a good education is invaluable, it teaches you how to almost destroy civilization and still avoid jail time. To me, the 2008 global financial near-collapse was the greatest scandal since the stock market collapse of 1929, and what has been done to prevent it from happening again? Nothing, so it will happen again. Its just a matter of time. What happens if, this time, there's nobody around to bail them out? Answer: a disaster of such scale that it will make every single crime committed by every single professional athlete in American history, put together, look like nothing in comparison. The last time it happened, we had a great depression, this time, we had a horrible recession, what happens next time? 






As for gun control, as long as the NRA is looney-tuney, even by the standards of the NRA's own membership, nothing will happen. The NRA's own rank-and-file members largely support gun control to some degree or another, at least the common sense stuff. The NRA doesn't represent is members, it represents gun manufacturers. There are over 300 million guns in America today, sometime in the next ten years, if the growth patterns hold, there will be more guns in America than there are people. No other advanced industrialized country on earth has this ratio of guns-to-people. None. This isn't about the second amendment. The NRA, and groups like them, don't care about the second amendment. 






They don't care about infringing on the right to bear arms, they care about the profit of gun manufacturers and that's about it. The people who are hoarding guns believe the government is going to come and take them away, so they have to be ready. The NRA and organizations like it, sell this fear to the people who listen to them, and the gun manufacturers pocket the money. Other countries don't have lobbying organizations that political leaders won't touch, like the NRA, that's why they have better gun control laws and why they don't have a problem with mass shootings. The NRA has taken the second amendment and changed it to mean something it was never supposed to mean. They've used it as a blanket justification to stop even the most easily avoided, and toothless, gun regulations. Remember how the NRA killed the sale of "Smart guns" in New Jersey, despite the fact that they wouldn't lead to a single gun being taken off the street, but would lead to increased gun safety and that's about it? You can't reason with people who see things that way, for whom even the most basic, common sense precautions to prevent the loss of life is seen as an assault. So, to end this post that has gone on too long anyway, my point is that I might like football, but I don't have a double-standard when it comes to players on my team and on other teams. I also don't have a double standard when it comes to crimes committed by athletes and crimes committed by other people. I think Aldon Smith should serve 12 games, minimum, this year. I also think Alex Boone is completely justified in holding out. I say God bless him, and good luck. His earnings career is short, and he's far outplayed his contract. If a team can cut a player because he's underperforming, why is it bad when a player holds out because he's overperforming? I don't see Boone's holdout as a problem at all. He's knows the team and his job, when he comes back, he'll be fine.
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >