The 2015 " I just can't stay out of jail " Thread .

[woodbuck27]

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/01/10...rry-of-firearm

Jets RB (Chris) Johnson arrested for open carry of firearm


The Sports Xchange

First posted: Saturday, January 10, 2015 04:54 PM EST | Updated: Saturday, January 10, 2015 05:04 PM EST

" New York Jets running back Chris Johnson was arrested Friday night in Orlando, Fla., and charged with the open carrying of a firearm.

The Orlando Police Department confirmed the arrest for a second-degree misdemeanor but refused to disclose any details. "

[Patler]

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/01/10...rry-of-firearm

Jets RB (Chris) Johnson arrested for open carry of firearm


The Sports Xchange

First posted: Saturday, January 10, 2015 04:54 PM EST | Updated: Saturday, January 10, 2015 05:04 PM EST

" New York Jets running back Chris Johnson was arrested Friday night in Orlando, Fla., and charged with the open carrying of a firearm.

The Orlando Police Department confirmed the arrest for a second-degree misdemeanor but refused to disclose any details. "

I don't think this one is a big deal. I read an article that said it was for an improperly cased gun in his car. He had all the proper permits and registrations, but apparently had it in a closed shoulder bag of some sort (one article called it a book bag), and the law requires a locked case when in the car.

[George Cumby]

Yup. Provided the shoulder bag didn't also contain a bunch of drugs, no big.

[woodbuck27]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...s-and-comments

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...olts/21770811/

Indianapolis Colts LB Josh McNary Charged with Rape:

Latest Details and Comments

By: Matt Fitzgerald , Featured Columnist

Jan. 14, 2015


" Indianapolis Colts linebacker Josh McNary was charged Wednesday with one count of rape, one count of battery resulting in bodily injury and one count of criminal confinement.

FOX59's Greg Margason reported the news, noting the incident being investigated transpired "on or around December 1." Superior Court Judge Sheila Carlisle has signed a warrant for McNary's arrest. "

[woodbuck27]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...on-paid-leave/

Colts ask NFL to put McNary on paid leave

Posted by Mike Florio on January 15, 2015, 10:20 AM EST

[mraynrand]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...on-paid-leave/

Colts ask NFL to put McNary on paid leave

Posted by Mike Florio on January 15, 2015, 10:20 AM EST

This is the end of the road of the very bad precedent in the wake of the Peterman example. It is effectively a presumption of guilt, which is a terrible thing for any justice system, particularly ours.

It also presents an excellent way of removing an opponents' player(s) from a critical game. Find someone to accuse a star player of rape (find someone in Tacoma to say Rodgers assaulted her for example) and the NFL must put him on paid leave until it is sorted out. No one would do that you say, and I say: just wait.

[pbmax]

This is the end of the road of the very bad precedent in the wake of the Peterman example. It is effectively a presumption of guilt, which is a terrible thing for any justice system, particularly ours.

It also presents an excellent way of removing an opponents' player(s) from a critical game. Find someone to accuse a star player of rape (find someone in Tacoma to say Rodgers assaulted her for example) and the NFL must put him on paid leave until it is sorted out. No one would do that you say, and I say: just wait.

I agree completely, though an arrest is often more damning than an accusation.

Mueller in his report said they shouldn't wait for the criminal justice system to finish, which makes sense. Not guilty is often not a synonym for innocent. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be an investigation first.

[MadScientist]

This is the end of the road of the very bad precedent in the wake of the Peterman example. It is effectively a presumption of guilt, which is a terrible thing for any justice system, particularly ours.

It also presents an excellent way of removing an opponents' player(s) from a critical game. Find someone to accuse a star player of rape (find someone in Tacoma to say Rodgers assaulted her for example) and the NFL must put him on paid leave until it is sorted out. No one would do that you say, and I say: just wait.

I agree completely, though an arrest is often more damning than an accusation.

Mueller in his report said they shouldn't wait for the criminal justice system to finish, which makes sense. Not guilty is often not a synonym for innocent. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be an investigation first.

The league requires that formal charges be brought against the player before putting him on the exempt list. In this case it took 6 weeks for that to happen. There was quite a bit of investigation done, with evidence that corroborated the woman's claim. Maybe a woman could go all 'Gone Girl' on a player, and make a public case that looked sensational and push for fast action, but that would take a good bit of planning and preparation to pull off.

[vince]

This is the end of the road of the very bad precedent in the wake of the Peterman example. It is effectively a presumption of guilt, which is a terrible thing for any justice system, particularly ours.

I'm not following this... Are you saying that a paid suspension by the NFL taints a jury when the justice system takes the case to court?

[mraynrand]

I'm not following this... Are you saying that a paid suspension by the NFL taints a jury when the justice system takes the case to court?

not necessarily, but I suppose it could. No, I was just making the point that it's a bad idea generally to suspend a guy before conviction. Wrong indictments are made all the time. So what does the player get if the indictment is wrong? Do they get to replay the game?

[mraynrand]

I don't disagree Vince, but I do see it as a pendulum, and now it is swinging pretty far towards the presumption of guilt side. You're right, people are just trying to protect images and $$$, but I believe it is because there is an intentional assault on football and football culture, by the left in this country. Sorry to let politics bleed in, but it's a reality, and it's affecting the game. In most cases, I think the suspensions and paid leaves are reasonable, but I don't like the trend, and I don't like the motivation.

[vince]

I don't disagree Vince, but I do see it as a pendulum, and now it is swinging pretty far towards the presumption of guilt side. You're right, people are just trying to protect images and $$$, but I believe it is because there is an intentional assault on football and football culture, by the left in this country. Sorry to let politics bleed in, but it's a reality, and it's affecting the game. In most cases, I think the suspensions and paid leaves are reasonable, but I don't like the trend, and I don't like the motivation.

I see what you're saying too. I just don't think the NFL is presuming guilt or innocence - just protecting itself from what's actually occurred to it.

[Guiness]

I see what you're saying too. I just don't think the NFL is presuming guilt or innocence - just protecting itself from what's actually occurred to it.

Agreed. One flaw though, that PFT has pointed out several times though, is that the NFL does not consider suspension with pay to be punishment. It is for a several reasons. How this affects things is a big deal in the Peterson case, where he missed almost the entire season on the exempt list, and when they assessed punishment did not give him credit for 'time served'.

[mraynrand]

Agreed. One flaw though, that PFT has pointed out several times though, is that the NFL does not consider suspension with pay to be punishment. It is for a several reasons. How this affects things is a big deal in the Peterson case, where he missed almost the entire season on the exempt list, and when they assessed punishment did not give him credit for 'time served'.

That's probably something they could fix, and still appropriately punish while keeping up the appearances they want. But ultimately, it's not up to the NFL. It's in control of the agitators and public opinion. The NFL has made that much pretty clear.

[vince]

Agreed. One flaw though, that PFT has pointed out several times though, is that the NFL does not consider suspension with pay to be punishment. It is for a several reasons. How this affects things is a big deal in the Peterson case, where he missed almost the entire season on the exempt list, and when they assessed punishment did not give him credit for 'time served'.

I agree with the NFL that suspension with pay is not punishment. Until it hits a player's wallet, it's not "punishment" from that standpoint. If the player incurs some "loss" or injustice (what that would be I'm not sure. The guy's getting an extended paid vacation.) due to him not playing in one or more games, then he can/should sue his accusor(s) for retribution because they caused the damage by virtue of their accusation and/or indictment, not the NFL. Hell the NFL probably should sue them too in that case.

[mraynrand]

I see what you're saying too. I just don't think the NFL is presuming guilt or innocence - just protecting itself from what's actually occurred to it.

presumption of guilt is the wrong term. CYA would be better. Bending to pressure is the essence of it.

[mraynrand]

^^^^ As we saw with Suh, the argument that suspension - even without pay - punishes the player can be weaker than the argument that it punishes the team, the fans and other teams that are relying on competitive games

[Guiness]

^^^^ As we saw with Suh, the argument that suspension - even without pay - punishes the player can be weaker than the argument that it punishes the team, the fans and other teams that are relying on competitive games

But a part of Suh's argument was that it punished him as well, and the arbitrator bought that.

The argument that 'football players want to play football, and not letting them is punishment' is not going to be bought by everyone, mostly because all they see is the money they're being paid to do nothing. But there is another money argument that should make sense to everyone - football is the ultimate 'what have you done for me lately' sport, and future contracts are based on recent (very recent!) performances. If, say, an RB is forced to sit a season when he's 29, his chances of getting one more contract are significantly less that year later when he's 30 and hasn't seen the field in a year. Even if the reason he was sat ends up going away.

[Guiness]

Not a current player, but someone who hasn't been out of the game long
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...olice-custody/

[pbmax]

I don't agree that suspension with pay is not punishment. It clearly is. The natural state is to participate. No cop wants to be administrative leave, and no player wants to be removed from the team.

Not being on the active roster affects bonuses and accrued seasons, which affects the FA clock, advancement of contract years and retirement packages. It also can affect contract negotiations if those are on the near term horizon. Taken to court, I don't think it stands because each of those other issues have been negotiated in the CBA and you can't modify it without negotiations and an agreement unless the CBA has come to an end.

Suspension with pay should only be temporary and used in extreme cases (where another life has been put in jeopardy or such) and allow the League to do due diligence.

If the League has done its investigation with the player in question, it should move to suspend him for a term agreed to with the NFLPA (based on predetermined scales) if they have corroborating evidence. To move to suspension with pay after an investigation is just kicking the can down the road and there is no credit for time served.