Ray Rice

[pbmax]

The video leaking did change things, but its not a simple two lane street of hypocrisy. Its a eight lane divided highway.

1. In his CBS interview, Roger denied that they had to see the video to understand what Rice and Palmer meant when they said (and the police report said) he struck her and knocked her down with his left hand. He then went on immediately to describe the content of the tape as "clear, graphic and sickening" and THAT was the reason they took additional action. That is hypocrisy #1, but if you believe that is the actual reason, I have a bridge to sell you. Its also an unforced error. Roger admitted they erred in the punishment. He could have simply amended that to they ended the investigation too early rather than say the video made no difference.

Video: http://www.latimes.com/sports/sports...htmlstory.html

2. The new video is public. Sponsors were now going to get a new wave of heat as this dominated the news coverage for a couple of days. The target demo wasn't particularly happy with the event and punishment. Most of American cannot do anything about the prosecutor in NJ, they can be mad at the NFL and not buy pink product. Everyone wants this story buried and off the front page so the team and league do something drastic to take back the headlines. He's cut and suspended. Rice is sacrificed, because this is going to cost the NFL revenue and bad press.

3. The NFL's only possible public justification for more punishment is the video. Which they claim contained nothing new and that their initial investigation was thorough enough to make them aware of the events. So now your story relies on the thin thread that you knew was was in the video, but had never seen or possessed it. That's having your hypocrisy and eating it too, evidentially speaking.

4. Inevitably, given they had previously described the content of the elevator video to the press, the NFL would be revealed to have had the tape. But it had the tape informally, they were not supped to reveal they had possession or had seen it. Their current answer? If we have it, no one knew it, its under the desk, a temp signed for the package and we never watched it.

5. Voicemail tells us that not only was there possession, but that someone watched it. And now they are left to claim the right people weren't told OR everyone was lying.

6. The NFL will still maintain that the Personal Conduct Policy (and HGH perhaps) should still not be subject to review, due process and arbitration. Because the commissioner must protect the Shield. Speaking of which, remember the Saints? Didn't Roger tell them that ignorance of events in the building was no defense to the charges? How about it Roger, you going to let some underling take the fall?

[MadtownPacker]

Who would think a Brotha hittin a Sista would result in Crackas exploding.

[Rastak]

Who would think a Brotha hittin a Sista would result in Crackas exploding.

That true.......as a side note, I recognized that shot as very similar to the KO from Ali-Liston I.

[pbmax]

That true.......as a side note, I recognized that shot as very similar to the KO from Ali-Liston I.

Are you saying Palmer owed money to wise guys and took a dive?

[Rastak]

Are you saying Palmer owed money to wise guys and took a dive?

That was Ali-Liston II. The phantom punch. I firmly believe that short left in the first fight knocked him out.

[Harlan Huckleby]

crack up side of head = Mexican foreplay

[Patler]

Forget that it is the NFL. It's an employer. Just like your employer. Forget (for the moment) that it is domestic violence case. It's a violation of our criminal justice standards, like other violations, assault against anyone, drunk driving, whatever.

Under what situations should your employer have the right to gather evidence on their own, review it on their own, and determine "their" punishment for you on their own apart from the determination made by criminal justice system?

It's easy to say "Ban the guy for life!" when it is a rich athlete and he punched his fiancee. By all accounts I have seen, there have been no other incidents and Rice has been described as a model citizen until now. The NFL has banned him.

If you are a licensed professional or tradesman, should your license be suspended for life based on your first criminal transgression when it is not one such as larceny, etc. that impacts your suitability for your profession? If you are a guy, should you lose it for sucker punching another guy in a bar? A female you don't know in a bar? A female acquaintance with whom you have no relationship? Your wife? How about if it is between gay couples? What if it's a wife suckerpunching her husband? Another female? Should you lose your license for life?

I'm not condoning what Rice did, nor the right for the NFL to issue some punishment, but I think we need to consider the when, how and how much in the same manner as we would if it was any of us and our employers.

[Fosco33]

Forget that it is the NFL. It's an employer. Just like your employer. Forget (for the moment) that it is domestic violence case. It's a violation of our criminal justice standards, like other violations, assault against anyone, drunk driving, whatever.

Under what situations should your employer have the right to gather evidence on their own, review it on their own, and determine "their" punishment for you on their own apart from the determination made by criminal justice system?

It's easy to say "Ban the guy for life!" when it is a rich athlete and he punched his fiancee. By all accounts I have seen, there have been no other incidents and Rice has been described as a model citizen until now. The NFL has banned him.

If you are a licensed professional or tradesman, should your license be suspended for life based on your first criminal transgression when it is not one such as larceny, etc. that impacts your suitability for your profession? If you are a guy, should you lose it for sucker punching another guy in a bar? A female you don't know in a bar? A female acquaintance with whom you have no relationship? Your wife? How about if it is between gay couples? What if it's a wife suckerpunching her husband? Another female? Should you lose your license for life?

I'm not condoning what Rice did, nor the right for the NFL to issue some punishment, but I think we need to consider the when, how and how much in the same manner as we would if it was any of us and our employers.

Many tradespeople can be fired for drug use - some on the spot.

I know in my profession, they do a pretty thorough background check and ask individuals to respond to any possible transgressions.

Heck, I'm instituting an 'emotional intelligence' component to my current recruiting practice because I'm sick of dealing with unstable people.

You all should read an interesting case of a kindergarten teacher caught defacing a Walker booth a a local county fare... should she be fired/suspended? Can the school district do independent investigation? Regardless of political view - would you want your 5yr old being taught by someone with less than stellar character?

[Patler]

Many tradespeople can be fired for drug use - some on the spot.

I know in my profession, they do a pretty thorough background check and ask individuals to respond to any possible transgressions.

Heck, I'm instituting an 'emotional intelligence' component to my current recruiting practice because I'm sick of dealing with unstable people.

You all should read an interesting case of a kindergarten teacher caught defacing a Walker booth a a local county fare... should she be fired/suspended? Can the school district do independent investigation? Regardless of political view - would you want your 5yr old being taught by someone with less than stellar character?

But now you are mixing in transgressions that impact the ability of the individual to perform their job. In those situations, of course the person should lose their job. I already acknowledged that when I advanced the questions. A lawyer or accountant who embezzles money will lose their license because their dishonesty calls into question whether or not they can do their job honestly. That's not the situation with Rice, nor what I was questioning.

[Fosco33]

But now you are mixing in transgressions that impact the ability of the individual to perform their job. In those situations, of course the person should lose their job. I already acknowledged that when I advanced the questions. A lawyer or accountant who embezzles money will lose their license because their dishonesty calls into question whether or not they can do their job honestly. That's not the situation with Rice, nor what I was questioning.

Not entirely. I could easily be fired for a DUI. Or things that are posted on social media. And trust me- my job has nothing to do with any of that. It's a professional service industry.

[Patler]

Not entirely. I could easily be fired for a DUI. Or things that are posted on social media. And trust me- my job has nothing to do with any of that. It's a professional service industry.

The question is SHOULD you be fired for acts in your personal life unrelated to your job?

[pbmax]

Forget that it is the NFL. It's an employer. Just like your employer. Forget (for the moment) that it is domestic violence case. It's a violation of our criminal justice standards, like other violations, assault against anyone, drunk driving, whatever.

Under what situations should your employer have the right to gather evidence on their own, review it on their own, and determine "their" punishment for you on their own apart from the determination made by criminal justice system?

It's easy to say "Ban the guy for life!" when it is a rich athlete and he punched his fiancee. By all accounts I have seen, there have been no other incidents and Rice has been described as a model citizen until now. The NFL has banned him.

If you are a licensed professional or tradesman, should your license be suspended for life based on your first criminal transgression when it is not one such as larceny, etc. that impacts your suitability for your profession? If you are a guy, should you lose it for sucker punching another guy in a bar? A female you don't know in a bar? A female acquaintance with whom you have no relationship? Your wife? How about if it is between gay couples? What if it's a wife suckerpunching her husband? Another female? Should you lose your license for life?

I'm not condoning what Rice did, nor the right for the NFL to issue some punishment, but I think we need to consider the when, how and how much in the same manner as we would if it was any of us and our employers.

So we asking if a plumbing company with 10 employees would be expected to behave the same way as a multi-billion dollar enterprise with 2,000 employees? Or vice-versa?

No one Googles their plumber. Few identify with the plumber. No one buys a shirt with the plumbers name on it (unless you are a hipster buying clothing at Goodwill). I have never participated in Fantasy Plumbing Leagues. EA Sports does not pay likeness rights to the plumbers of America.

If the plumbing company carries Trane products, very little notice is given to a criminal infraction by a plumber and even less notice attaches itself to Trane.

If Ray Rice's jersey or picture is on the NFL website, on a page sponsored by Trane, then that notoriety attachers itself to Trane much more easily. Especially if he appears on TV with Trane attached in some way.

The NFL doesn't sell a trade. It sells branding opportunities, chances for companies to attach their business to the reputation and popularity of the NFL, to increase visibility and profitability. If an act makes that transaction harder or less profitable, it affects the business model. Just look at the NBA and NFL a few years ago worried about their thug image.

If the plumber has run afoul of the law before in their life, I am still more interested in whether or not he can stop the leak. These concerns overlap if the plumber tends to steal from the homes he works in (or commits other crimes while there) or commits fraud. Because the interaction is personal, my list of concerns is very specific.

The affinity for the NFL is much more transient and tied to entertainment. Its therefore much more broad (more areas of concern), much less personal and ultimately more easily replaced. We have disagreed before about how fungible players are (especially short versus medium-long term) but the player is very dependent on his personal reputation. The plumber is dependent on his professional reputation.

That said, to answer the basic question, I think the newly announced guidelines, which Roger thew out after the video hit the airwaves, seem quite reasonable.

[Fritz]

So we asking if a plumbing company with 10 employees would be expected to behave the same way as a multi-billion dollar enterprise with 2,000 employees? Or vice-versa?

No one Googles their plumber. Few identify with the plumber. No one buys a shirt with the plumbers name on it (unless you are a hipster buying clothing at Goodwill). I have never participated in Fantasy Plumbing Leagues. EA Sports does not pay likeness rights to the plumbers of America.

If the plumbing company carries Trane products, very little notice is given to a criminal infraction by a plumber and even less notice attaches itself to Trane.

If Ray Rice's jersey or picture is on the NFL website, on a page sponsored by Trane, then that notoriety attachers itself to Trane much more easily. Especially if he appears on TV with Trane attached in some way.

The NFL doesn't sell a trade. It sells branding opportunities, chances for companies to attach their business to the reputation and popularity of the NFL, to increase visibility and profitability. If an act makes that transaction harder or less profitable, it affects the business model. Just look at the NBA and NFL a few years ago worried about their thug image.

If the plumber has run afoul of the law before in their life, I am still more interested in whether or not he can stop the leak. These concerns overlap if the plumber tends to steal from the homes he works in (or commits other crimes while there) or commits fraud. Because the interaction is personal, my list of concerns is very specific.

The affinity for the NFL is much more transient and tied to entertainment. Its therefore much more broad (more areas of concern), much less personal and ultimately more easily replaced. We have disagreed before about how fungible players are (especially short versus medium-long term) but the player is very dependent on his personal reputation. The plumber is dependent on his professional reputation.

The problem for me is that once you're okay with the NFL - a "brand" is ever there was one - being allowed to punish/fire players for acts that occur outside of the workplace because those acts damage the "brand," then you've opened the door to every single company to be able to control the private lives of employees and to fire those who don't knuckle under.

So if you own a plumbing company, and you've "branded" yourself as a family-oriented, good-citizen company, and one of your young plumbers goes and gets wasted and gets into a fight on Saturday night, you really can, under this line of thinking, fire the guy because he's damaging your "brand."

In that scenario there is no private life left. There is only a constant monitoring of one's life by others. One of the big mistakes many people make is in thinking it's "the government" that is doing all this. But that's only part of it. Private corporations (say, Google Earth) are recording where you live, are looking at your facebook page, are monitoring your tweets, and are ready to fire your ass if you don't act in an acceptable way.

I am a little surprised at how okay so many people are with having lost their right to a private life.

[pbmax]

The problem for me is that once you're okay with the NFL - a "brand" is ever there was one - being allowed to punish/fire players for acts that occur outside of the workplace because those acts damage the "brand," then you've opened the door to every single company to be able to control the private lives of employees and to fire those who don't knuckle under.

So if you own a plumbing company, and you've "branded" yourself as a family-oriented, good-citizen company, and one of your young plumbers goes and gets wasted and gets into a fight on Saturday night, you really can, under this line of thinking, fire the guy because he's damaging your "brand."

In that scenario there is no private life left. There is only a constant monitoring of one's life by others. One of the big mistakes many people make is in thinking it's "the government" that is doing all this. But that's only part of it. Private corporations (say, Google Earth) are recording where you live, are looking at your facebook page, are monitoring your tweets, and are ready to fire your ass if you don't act in an acceptable way.

I am a little surprised at how okay so many people are with having lost their right to a private life.

We'll, Fritz, unless you are lucky enough to work for a union, every at-will employee in the country is already under that threat. You can be terminated at any time for any reason. Unless they wish to deny you unemployment, they don't even need to show cause or have a suitable reason. Its entirely up to the employer (and employee-they can leave anytime as well). Like Rice, if the plumber is really good, the company will go to longer lengths to keep him around. If he stinks or is easily replaceable, he's going to be out of luck.

I don't think the branding argument works for the Plumbing Co because even if they are big, Trane isn't going to stop selling them parts and furnaces because an employee got into trouble.

A company I know well is currently considering using background checks when hiring because they have had two bad apples recently with bad work histories that weren't readily apparent with the normal screening procedures. Those background checks will include criminal histories if such exist, from publicly available databases. The NFL is just better (and has more resources) than most employers.

Criminal histories are not generally private information. The paper every day is full of the police log book from the night before.

[Striker]

The problem for me is that once you're okay with the NFL - a "brand" is ever there was one - being allowed to punish/fire players for acts that occur outside of the workplace because those acts damage the "brand," then you've opened the door to every single company to be able to control the private lives of employees and to fire those who don't knuckle under.

So if you own a plumbing company, and you've "branded" yourself as a family-oriented, good-citizen company, and one of your young plumbers goes and gets wasted and gets into a fight on Saturday night, you really can, under this line of thinking, fire the guy because he's damaging your "brand."

In that scenario there is no private life left. There is only a constant monitoring of one's life by others. One of the big mistakes many people make is in thinking it's "the government" that is doing all this. But that's only part of it. Private corporations (say, Google Earth) are recording where you live, are looking at your facebook page, are monitoring your tweets, and are ready to fire your ass if you don't act in an acceptable way.

I am a little surprised at how okay so many people are with having lost their right to a private life.

A lot of our rights to a private life are still there. However, in the social media age we live in, everyone has to be smart and careful with how they conduct themselves on the internet (when posting under your actual alias) and in public places. If you can't resist the urge to post inflammatory stuff on your public profile? Then operate under an alias or, better yet, make sure you lock down your privacy settings.

Or better yet, don't be an idiot.

"Hey, I'm going to smoke a joint, should I post that on my publicly accessible Facebook page?"

"I think my boss is a total fuckstick, should I post that opinion on Twitter?"

Case in point - > Link and link.

[sharpe1027]

Forget that it is the NFL. It's an employer. Just like your employer. Forget (for the moment) that it is domestic violence case. It's a violation of our criminal justice standards, like other violations, assault against anyone, drunk driving, whatever.

Under what situations should your employer have the right to gather evidence on their own, review it on their own, and determine "their" punishment for you on their own apart from the determination made by criminal justice system?

It's easy to say "Ban the guy for life!" when it is a rich athlete and he punched his fiancee. By all accounts I have seen, there have been no other incidents and Rice has been described as a model citizen until now. The NFL has banned him.

If you are a licensed professional or tradesman, should your license be suspended for life based on your first criminal transgression when it is not one such as larceny, etc. that impacts your suitability for your profession? If you are a guy, should you lose it for sucker punching another guy in a bar? A female you don't know in a bar? A female acquaintance with whom you have no relationship? Your wife? How about if it is between gay couples? What if it's a wife suckerpunching her husband? Another female? Should you lose your license for life?

I'm not condoning what Rice did, nor the right for the NFL to issue some punishment, but I think we need to consider the when, how and how much in the same manner as we would if it was any of us and our employers.

I buy the NFL product. I have a right to voice my opinion on what they should be doing. They don't have to listen, but the NFL would be stupid to alienate its customers. Other employers are no different. I don't understand your point. It has nothing to do with criminal justice system our professional licenses.

[Patler]

I buy the NFL product. I have a right to voice my opinion on what they should be doing. They don't have to listen, but the NFL would be stupid to alienate its customers. Other employers are no different. I don't understand your point. It has nothing to do with criminal justice system our professional licenses.

So the masses decide the rights of the individual?

The NFL has banned Rice, taken away his ability to play professional football in this country. It's no different than suspending a licensed professional's license, rendering him unable to practice his/her profession.

[sharpe1027]

So the masses decide the rights of the individual?

The NFL has banned Rice, taken away his ability to play professional football in this country. It's no different than suspending a licensed professional's license, rendering him unable to practice his/her profession.

No different? You mean there are some similarities? Let's not overstate things. If your point is that NFL is a monopoly and therefore not comparable to most employers, that's a bit different than what you were saying above about any employers rights.

Your issue seems to be whether the NFL has the right to do what they did. What gives Rice the right to work for the NFL? If they don't want him, should they be forced to hire him?

[Patler]

No different? You mean there are some similarities? Let's not overstate things. If your point is that NFL is a monopoly and therefore not comparable to most employers, that's a bit different than what you were saying above about any employers rights.

Your issue seems to be whether the NFL has the right to do what they did. What gives Rice the right to work for the NFL? If they don't want him, should they be forced to hire him?

He was already hired.

[MadtownPacker]

Many of you stank honkies would be toast if your bosses contacted PackerRats!!