Monday, September 15, 2014


Wow,yet another horror story involving a pro football player- and the offender insists he's not a child abuser. Here's a hint, if your family photo album looks like scenes out of Abu Ghraib, you are most certainly a child abuser.

I'm getting to the point where I not only think that Goodell should resign, I'm mow thinking that the NFL should be disbanded. Monday night spelling bees, anyone?


zombie rotten mcdonald said...

And now that they lost a game, the Vikings have decided to bring Adrian Petersen back to active status.

The NFL has a 99 problems, and knowing how to deal with them is apparently beyond their executives....

OBS said...

I read the comments over at LGM about the Peterson thing. Gah!

I think I'm going to stop reading LGM now -- I had already stopped commenting. I already have enough things in my life to be pissed about, and fellow "liberals" condoning child abuse is just a bridge too far (and no, I doubt either of you would be surprised by who those particular commenters are).

I need a drink.

Anonymous said...

I posted this on Facebook this morning. To be honest, I was thinking more about the domestic violence crimes - beating your child with a stick seems pretty awful, although it's been SOP in many communities for centuries. But there are genuine questions that seem to be getting short shrift:


Here's the thing that is confuddling me.

The controversy seems to be whether a team allows the player to play after he is arrested for various offenses, and/or at what point in the process the team de-activates or benches that player. So the primary punishment question is preventing or allowing the player to play in games.

Now obviously this is a salient question because the team's interest is in winning games, and that might influence their decision making process.

But this is weird. Being prevented from playing in games while still maintaining his position on the roster and on the payroll is NOT a terribly serious 'punishment' for the player. It punishes the team for the player's actions, while the player essentially gets a paid vacation.

In the larger question, I am terribly uncomfortable with employers taking actions after an arrest, before the DA even decides to file charges. The earliest in the process an employer should take any action at all is after arraignment. But if the team is going to act against the player at any point, shouldn't the player actually incur some kind of loss?

ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said...

The NFL is a rather perfect metaphor for our government.

Does our CIA lie and support vicious murderers in foreign countries?

Yes. Yes they do, and it has not ever stopped.

zombie rotten mcdonald said...

I think I'm going to stop reading LGM now

Well, that would be too bad, Snob. You could usually bring the snark, or at least beer snobbery...

Helmut Monotreme said...

Mr Hyatt. These incidents of abuse are only allegations in the legal sense that the players have not been formally charged and convicted. Assuming the players aren't victims of implausibly elaborate frame-up jobs straight out of the CIA's book of dirty tricks, there isn't much question that these incidents of violent abuse actually were committed by the players in question. Are we to believe that a person who commits domestic or child abuse and is for some reason acquitted or who pleads to a lesser crime for a reduced penalty is less guilty than someone whom the justice system was able to convict? I don't believe that, just like I don't believe that prosecutors never convict innocent people for horrible crimes.

Our justice system is based on what prosecutors can prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury, which is the best we can do until we are all under 24/7 video surveillance from multiple angles. Sometimes there is compelling evidence that is not admissible. That means the safeguards we have in place to prevent police and prosecutorial misconduct are working, it doesn't mean that the accused is innocent.

The NFL is a massively profitable enterprise, which is wholly dependent on the goodwill of the millions of fans to sustain its business model of trading the youth and health of the best athletes in the country for fleeting money and fame and lasting brain trauma. The US in general and pro sports in particular have a way of minimizing crimes that would get people who aren't for example star football players much harsher consequences.

Just as a bank that catches a teller stealing money from the vault on camera isn't going to wait to fire them until they are convicted of theft, the NFL has a responsibility to, if no one else, it's own brand image to deal with these cases of abuse in a manner that shows the world that they take this issue seriously. To do otherwise is to demonstrate that the NFL puts its corporate profits ahead of the safety of the public, and reinforces the idea that pro athletes are above the law.

mikey said...

Well, if you are comfortable with an employer taking action that early in the legal process, ok, but I'm certainly not. Your metaphor is flawed - who caught the teller taking the money? Is it on video? Did another form of surveillance observe it? Or is there money missing and you suspect that specific teller is guilty? Because if a League Official actually observed the violence, that would be sufficient for the team to act. But if there is an arrest only - and by the way your faith in law enforcement is truly ill-founded - then an employee should not be disciplined.

I've been arrested about three times more than I've been prosecuted - they pretty much arrest anybody anytime they want to, and sort it out later.

And if you're ok with the NFL doing something you wouldn't want your employee to do to you, you're being quite selective in your application of employee rights, which is something I'm not willing to do...

OBS said...

The dude admitted it. Essentially thinks it's no big deal, just doing what his daddy did to him (and from the comments I mentioned above, that seems like a pretty common thing, disgustingly).

There are pictures of the resulting injuries, and supposedly the NFL has seen them.

But it looks like he's gonna play, so ... you win? Woo.

OBS said...

Well, that would be too bad, Snob. You could usually bring the snark, or at least beer snobbery...

Meh, the only people that ever even noticed I was around were you and the few other folks that already hang out at places like our fine host's here. And you guys can't get rid of me quite that easily.