Bosses or county relief.
Bosses may just be an email away, but so is ICE.
Printable View
I remember reading an article about 20 years ago that talked about the popularity of "reality" shows in the U.K. and Europe - before that poison had spread here. The shows centered around the pack mentality of isolating the target, and then heaping abuse upon them as they were disgraced off the show.
The article talked about the possible societal consequences of such behavior and of such a worldview - that it would lead to a loss of perspective and diminishment of socially appropriate behavior for those that became engrossed is such nonsense.
Of course there was no vision of what "social media" would become - but with our society now awash with morons - that article is certainly proving to be prophetic.
So players can rape, do drugs, be involved in shootings etc... But the NFL and the public are outraged at someone for a domestic spat. Now the whole deal over when the NFL had possession of the video. Give me a fucking break, it's not like this is the first thing the NFL has ever covered up.
He has earned millions of dollars from his career. She is in no trouble. This is your definition of a ruined life? Do you realize how much actual suffering you are minimizing by using that adjective to describe a fabulously wealthy man? That he is denied, temporarily, employment in one business because he publicly embarrassed himself and his employer.
BTW, many Ravens fans are backing Rice. So I don't think his career is done yet.
This is actually nothing new and has little to do with social media. Someone I know very well was followed for a week after a car accident by an investigator for an insurance company to gather evidence against any claims for injury that might eventually occur. Social media didn't invent people trying to save their business money. Its just another window to peek in.Quote:
This social media shit is completely out of control... and it's b/c people can no longer control themselves and mind their own fucking business. You take care of you, and I'll take care of me... that used to be a staple of American citizenship - long since forgotten now I guess.
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.
It kind of makes me sick to my stomach reading Ray Lewis' attempt to contrast his situation and Rice's:
In another one I read he kept harping on the fact that it was someones daughter. someone's sister; and if anyone did that to his daughter or sister there would be trouble. Well, what about it being someones son or brother, and the fact that his life was taken?? Lewis was accepted back with open arms.Quote:
"There is no comparison. This is nothing about me, personally, me speaking with the owner of the Ravens today, Steve Biscotti, just moments ago," Lewis said. "And just listening to the reason why Ray Rice will never play for the Ravens again, he put his daughter — he put anybody that's connected to him that's a female — he put them in that position. When you do that you have to take a step back. When you're an owner and anybody who walks in the room and you see that type of evidence that you haven't seen or heard before ...
“One thing Steve made very clear: there is no comparison of me and Ray Rice. It's night and day. It's night and day of anything we've ever been through and that's why both situations are totally different.”
So Maximus Sanctimonious has decreed that Mr. Rice has made "enough", and that his and his family's needs, wants, and desires are sufficiently fulfilled that they must never be allowed to work again... that about right??
I feel blessed to have finally found a man without sin. A man so grounded in wisdom and insight that such a decree can only be deemed beyond reproach - as the man is surely above reproach.
All hail Maximus :bow:
Some more thoughts on the pattern of domestic abuse:
The Patterns: http://deadspin.com/the-only-thing-u...hat-1633583402
Blaming themselves or recanting the original charge: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21840635 (link from above story)
I can't find a decent summary of the last point I want to make, so I'll paraphrase and link to the source. When Goodell met with the combatants before deciding discipline, he presumably wanted to hear Janay Palmer's side of the story. He did it with Ray Rice in the room. Also present were Ravens GM Ozzie Newsome, Ravens club president Dick Cass plus Jeff Pash and Adolpho Birch of the league.
Does anyone see a problem with that lineup? Everyone has a vested interest in the financial success of the meeting. Only one person has a truly vested interest in the victim's health. And that person is conflicted at best, compromised as worst. And sitting in the same room with the abuser when speaking to his bosses.
http://mmqb.si.com/2014/07/25/ray-ri...ension-ravens/
Goodell should be sanctioned in some way, but not because he doesn't understand domestic abuse or levies minimal sanctions against it. He shouldn't be fired because some NFL Security lackey made him out to be a liar about the tape. Not should he be fired for apparently not asking how NFL Security got a detailed description of the elevator tape without possessing it, something he claims he thought was illegal. Not because he backed himself and the League into a corner by having a pot offense go for a year and a domestic abuse situation go for 2 games.
He should be sanctioned because he is dumb enough to think he knows enough to be judge and jury for the Personal Conduct Policy. Anyone with an ounce of self-awareness would know how big a job that is, how much information they don't have and would look to create a functional structure to guard against being a complete schmuck.
With all due respect, and I do respect your takes. Ray Lewis killed no one. I watched that trial and he wasn't remotely connected. There is no way he killed those guys. No way.
Now maybe you have a point as it relates to his lack of candor about the two thugs in his posse that killed those guys, and the fact they were aquitted. I guess if that's your point, perhaps I agree after all. He certainly didn't spill his guts even if he wasn't involved.
There was absolutely no evidence against him. That asshat covered it up though. He shoved them into the limo and tried to hush it all.
Look, courttv is a cool thing and hearing all the testimony is really interesting. He came off as only concerned with his image after two guys were murdered by two thugs in his group.
How did his white suit get blood on it? Because he was standing a discrete 30' away?
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.
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?
The problem is that you're comparing the NFL to regular jobs. It's an apple and orange comparison. It's well known that the NFL is completely about image and money, so therefore they base their decisions on those items. What an employee does there is completely magnified to the nth degree due to who they work for. It comes with the territory and the players and other employees know it. The same rules don't apply to the regular world as they do for the NFL due to their high profile. I think the comparison you're trying to do is flawed on a basic level. I see what you're looking to accomplish, but I don't think it works.
There is no sense in pretending the NFL is anything resembling a normal employer. A normal "career" in the NFL is 3 years long and ends abruptly before delivering pizzas forever. The nature of the industry is such that players must always be prepared to never play football again. Before the incident, the league was unquestionably better with Rice in it. His body didn't get injured but his image did and the result is exactly the same, the league thinks it no longer benefits from Rice's contributions. Seeing the NFL's action as a punishment is inaccurate. Ray Rice isn't banned because he hit his lady, he's banned because a video was released to the public of him hitting his lady.
In all likelihood the standard NFL boilerplate contract contains a "morals clause" which is broad and which gives the NFL all kinds of power to have its way in matters like this. Rice voluntarily accepted the terms of his contract in exchange for millions in compensation. It's pretty cut and dried to me.
I think Patler is trying to ask a broader question: Should employers be able to terminate someone who has committed a transgression outside of work and work hours, regardless of industry or monopoly status?
I assume for the sake of my argument that the transgression in question does not impair the ability of the person to work (or be available to work) and does no harm (financial or PR) to the firm in question. So I am not considering the case of a cab driver booked on a DUI charge.
My answer is yes, they should, because absent specifically negotiated due process in a contract (personal services or Union), I am not sure such a matter can be adjudicated easily in a Court or arbitration hearing. But I am open to the argument that at will employment confers a greater advantage of information to the employer than to the employee.
It's so arbitrary with the NFL that it is starting to drive me crazy.
3irty1 hit the nail on the head. Rice isn't band because of doestic violence. He's banned because of a video. If there had been video, lots of Packers would have been banned over the years.
So domestic abuse in the privacy of your home might get you as short suspension. Domestic abuse in public gets you banned, but only if there is video.
The League's letter to Rice giving him official word about his suspension says that that the additional sanction was because the video showed a substantially different version of events than had been portrayed in the meeting with Goodell, League officials and the team.
Which, going back to our six stages of hypocrisy list, means that League officials who viewed the video at the casino (and received and watched their own copy of the video) managed not to convey the actual events very accurately to their superiors, if at all. If that was true, you might think someone would face sanctions themselves for failing at their job. We'll probably have to wait until a Friday news dump in April to get word from Mueller's investigation on that.
OK, but different levels of evidence exist in all cases of wrongdoing. And that affects verdicts and sentencing even for substantially the same act. Details of laws (there are often 5 levels of sexual assault on the books) and their corresponding sentences often depend on very fine grained reading of the available evidence.
So is that what disturbs you, or the fact that the League believed this was a "both sides are to blame and a slap isn't really a punch" incident that is domestic violence incident only in the technical sense?
Or is it my particular brand of exasperation, that Goodell seems to pick punishments out of a hat after reading USAToday?
Yes. This is true. Like it or hate it, the level of certainty in the culpability, as well as the public perception seems to be a large factor. That being said, this is not a criminal proceeding where it is mostly a yes or no verdict. Here, the punishment can be adjusted based upon the certainty culpability as well as on other factors, such as the possible effect on the bottom line of the league ($$). Is it really so different than any other business?
The part that bothers me most is the response to mob mentality. Nothing changed from the original suspension to his total ban, other than the video. They knew it was a case of domestic violence, the video didn't change that. But, public perception changed, so then the NFL changes a ruling they had already made.
Sooner or later team will conduct surveys to see who the fans want to be the starters. After all, it's better for the league to give the fans the players they want to see.
I have to agree with Patler. The NFL as an entertainment "brand" has so overwhelmingly passed the NFL as a football league that it's getting harder and harder to find the actual football. Storylines of broadcasts are about individuals, not teams. Decisions are being made based on profit, and it's not that that's intrinsically bad - it's that profit is not tied to individual teams and their success (i.e. winning), it's now tied to the league as an entity, and that means an emphasis on individual stories, not on the games.
They did that with the pro bowl and nobody watches anymore.
If we are talking about an ideal way to handle this stuff it is one thing. I agree with most of Patler's points on what the NFL did wrong. If, however, we are talking about what the NFL had the right to do (even if less than ideal) that's a whole different ball of wax.
The Pro Bowl is not a good example because there's nothing at stake. A storyline has to be created - the league has to give the game meaning.
Does your employer have the right to conduct its own investigation of something you've been accused to doing outside of work?
Many people are saying this.
I heard somebody in Ravens organization, perhaps the owner, give a very plausible explanation of what changed. He wanted to believe that something less brutal happened. He thought the woman was drunk, banged her head against the wall.
This sounds right to me. People are very good at believing what they badly hope is true. The video was a dose of reality and changed everything.
You'd like to think these were data-driven decisions from the league but it certainly doesn't seem that way. Seems like Goodell renders judgment base on his horoscope that day.
Rice should just do and say everything Vick said to get reinstated replacing the word "dogs" with "women." If you can manipulate the media to get kicked out you can manipulate them to get back in.
You and Patler need sensitivity training. Get more in touch with your feelings, soften your hearts. Become fully human.
BTW, I hate the NFL for sort-of the opposite reason: too much player movement. Just when I start to really like an individual player, like James Jones, he was gone. I hated that minnie-me center, Scott Wells. Then I warmed up to him and he left. I agree with Seinfeld's old joke that the only thing that stays constant with pro sports are the uniforms, so we're cheering for laundry.