What Crimes Should The League Punish By Lifetime Suspension?

[anditsgood]

Ray Lewis pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. There's no way in hell he deserved a lifetime ban over that.

He plea bargained a felony down to a misdemeanor for his testimony in a murder trial, A murder where his blood stained clothes disappears, a murder where he was present and his people he was with, committed. He was no innocent bystander who happened to just witness.

If you think in no way in hell that deserves a lifetime ban, the I guess nothing does, and this thread has no point

 

[Tunescribe]

My, what a cheerful post-Thanksgiving thread topic! I propose the following bases for lifetime banishment:

* Foot fetishism.
* Having children with more than three different women.
* Playing for a team whose fans gather on stairwells and clamor for women to expose their breasts.
* Gorging on goddamn snacks.
* Killing animals for purposes of gambling.
* Pimping one's wife out to strangers via Internet perv sites.
* Murder, rape, grand larceny, drug dealing, aiding/abetting ISIS, etc., etc.

 

[mgteich]

He plea bargained a felony down to a misdemeanor for his testimony in a murder trial, A murder where his blood stained clothes disappears, a murder where he was present and his people he was with, committed. He was no innocent bystander who happened to just witness.

If you think in no way in hell that deserves a lifetime ban, the I guess nothing does, and this thread has no point

The point of this thread (at least for me) is to explore how different our views are with regard to the degree that the NFL should be in the business of punishes civil offenses. I focused with the extreme of what acts should warrant a life time ban. Some think that the NFL is not a court and should not be involved in punishments for civil crimes. Another view is to take anyone convicted of a felony in any jurisdictions and ban him for life (let's purge ourselves of those car thieves!). For others the determination depends on the league deciding the merits of the individual case, and meting out its own punishments.

Your point seems to be that the NFL should be the court of last resort. If the punishment by civil courts isn't enough, then apparently the NFL court should add to the sentence. I'm NOT being sarcastic. This is the point you're are making with regard to Lewis. Others make the same implicit argument with regard to Rice, Peterson and Hernandez.

My view is the same as DI's. Sure the league needs to have rules and punishments regarding actions that affect what happens on the field, notably performance enhancing drugs and gambling. Obviously, there are many safety regarded rules and punishments. Foe example, one could be banned for life after a certain number of concussions.

 

[anditsgood]

The point of this thread (at least for me) is to explore how different our views are with regard to the degree that the NFL should be in the business of punishes civil offenses. I focused with the extreme of what acts should warrant a life time ban. Some think that the NFL is not a court and should not be involved in punishments for civil crimes. Another view is to take anyone convicted of a felony in any jurisdictions and ban him for life (let's purge ourselves of those car thieves!). For others the determination depends on the league deciding the merits of the individual case, and meting out its own punishments.

Your point seems to be that the NFL should be the court of last resort. If the punishment by civil courts isn't enough, then apparently the NFL court should add to the sentence. I'm NOT being sarcastic. This is the point you're are making with regard to Lewis. Others make the same implicit argument with regard to Rice, Peterson and Hernandez.

My view is the same as DI's. Sure the league needs to have rules and punishments regarding actions that affect what happens on the field, notably performance enhancing drugs and gambling. Obviously, there are many safety regarded rules and punishments. Foe example, one could be banned for life after a certain number of concussions.

No, my point is the NFL has the right to protect and promote it's image and ban any individual that may tarnish that image Like it or not, players are role models, and the youth look up to them and the players do have an impact on them. It's definitely not effected by any courts punishment or lack of it.

 

[Deus Irae]

Pretty sure the suggestion was due to Ray Lewis being a murderer. Pretty sure you knew that and were trying to make an obtuse point skirting the fact we all know he's a murderer. League or Team doesn't have to wait for conviction- AHern case proved that.

Pretty sure the only think Ray Lewis has on his record is the misdemeanor. Pretty sure you know that. Pretty sure you're being an ass, while my response was specifically tailored to respond about Lewis in light of the OP's question.

I think O.J. Killed his wife, but he was innocent in a court of law. I'd say that the NFL has no business banning him, too. If this is all going to come down to what individual beliefs about other individuals instead of having some legit criteria, we need to make this nationwide. About 300 million Americans are about to find out that they've been deemed too stupid to hold a job.

 

[Deus Irae]

No, my point is the NFL has the right to protect and promote it's image and ban any individual that may tarnish that image Like it or not, players are role models, and the youth look up to them and the players do have an impact on them. It's definitely not effected by any courts punishment or lack of it.

The NFL is just the cover organization. It is not the employer of NFL players. It has no such right as you give it, outside of the CBA.

 

[anditsgood]

The NFL is just the cover organization. It is not the employer of NFL players. It has no such right as you give it, outside of the CBA.

But the NFLPA has given the Commissioner those powers and to do it arbitrary and without any consistency. Maybe the next CBA will address that, and its the reason why the Steelers were the only organization not to vote for it

 

[Deus Irae]

But the NFLPA has given the Commissioner those powers and to do it arbitrary and without any consistency. Maybe the next CBA will address that, and its the reason why the Steelers were the only organization not to vote for it

It's understood that the NFL currently has the powers given it via the CBA, including disciplinary powers. That changes nothing of what I've written, so I'm a bit confused as to your point here.

People finding what the league is doing to be acceptable is something I find to be a sad commentary on the state of the U.S. male. I remember back when Brady's party, in another country, had gunfire occur. The NFL could, conceivably, claim the authority to penalize Brady for such an incident in the future.

 

[fnordcircle]

From a fan standpoint? I dunno, I'm not gonna root for a dude who kicks his toddler's balls but if they want to pay him that's up to them. The law and courts exists to dole out punishment personally I don't think we need companies tacking on the damage on top.

As far as business decisions go from public relations standpoint anything that involves violence against women and violence against children that gets a conviction should result in a minimum 1 year with some sort of counseling. Anything involving rape and murder convictions should be a lifetime ban. Again - this is just like, looking at it from a business perspective not necessarily what I'd want them to do.

 

[anditsgood]

It's understood that the NFL currently has the powers given it via the CBA, including disciplinary powers. That changes nothing of what I've written, so I'm a bit confused as to your point here.

People finding what the league is doing to be acceptable is something I find to be a sad commentary on the state of the U.S. male. I remember back when Brady's party, in another country, had gunfire occur. The NFL could, conceivably, claim the authority to penalize Brady for such an incident in the future.

Why did you confuse yourself?

You start the thread with a title of "OT - What Crimes Should The League Punish By Lifetime Suspension?"

which my answer was " the NFL has the right to protect and promote it's image and ban any individual that may tarnish that image Like it or not, players are role models, and the youth look up to them and the players do have an impact on them. It's definitely (should) not (be) effected by any courts (decision on) punishment or lack of it."

Then you say " It has no such right as you give it, outside of the CBA."

but then say "It's understood that the NFL currently has the powers given it via the CBA, including disciplinary powers"

There is nothing confusing in our exchange, we disagree. You feel any criminal charges should be dealt with in the court and after justice is served, they should be free to play for any team that wants them,I on the other hand, believe the NFL has a right to protect its image, What we havent discusses in the cases of lines crossed or perceived lines cross, the person can seek arbitration (which i a process I heavily favor) to prevent abuse of powers.

 

[RobAllan]

Pretty sure the only think Ray Lewis has on his record is the misdemeanor. Pretty sure you know that. Pretty sure you're being an ass, while my response was specifically tailored to respond about Lewis in light of the OP's question.

I think O.J. Killed his wife, but he was innocent in a court of law. I'd say that the NFL has no business banning him, too. If this is all going to come down to what individual beliefs about other individuals instead of having some legit criteria, we need to make this nationwide. About 300 million Americans are about to find out that they've been deemed too stupid to hold a job.

I most certainly wasn't being an ass- it's not my fault you did something that you're usually quite critical of on this board and intentionally misinterpreted the intent of a comment that was made. Believe what you will, however. I think your descent into name-calling over nothing says all that needs to be said, really. That's your personality and that nearly fully explains where you're falling on this issue.

Interestingly, I just "disliked" your post not because of the childish behavior, but because OJ would also deserve banishment from the league just like Lewis. In my opinion, anyway. Which actually WAS the point of this thread despite your protestations.

 

[Deus Irae]

Why did you confuse yourself?

You start the thread with a title of "OT - What Crimes Should The League Punish By Lifetime Suspension?"

I didn't start the thread.

which my answer was " the NFL has the right to protect and promote it's image and ban any individual that may tarnish that image Like it or not, players are role models, and the youth look up to them and the players do have an impact on them. It's definitely (should) not (be) effected by any courts (decision on) punishment or lack of it."

Then you say " It has no such right as you give it, outside of the CBA."

Yes....

but then say "It's understood that the NFL currently has the powers given it via the CBA, including disciplinary powers"

Yes...

There is nothing confusing in our exchange, we disagree. You feel any criminal charges should be dealt with in the court and after justice is served, they should be free to play for any team that wants them,I on the other hand, believe the NFL has a right to protect its image, What we havent discusses in the cases of lines crossed or perceived lines cross, the person can seek arbitration (which i a process I heavily favor) to prevent abuse of powers.

Ok, so you don't seem to understand the word "right" has a particular meaning in law. That's where the confusion is. The only NFL "right" to discipline the players comes from the CBA. Outside of that, everything is per issue labor law. There is no "right" to protect an image.

 

[Deus Irae]

I most certainly wasn't being an ass-

Yes, you were.

it's not my fault you did something that you're usually quite critical of on this board and intentionally misinterpreted the intent of a comment that was made. Believe what you will, however. I think your descent into name-calling over nothing says all that needs to be said, really. That's your personality and that nearly fully explains where you're falling on this issue.

I didn't misunderstand anything. I noted that all he has on his record is a misdemeanor, and that there's no way he'd deserve a lifetime ban over a misdemeanor. There's no misunderstanding there.

Interestingly, I just "disliked" your post not because of the childish behavior, but because OJ would also deserve banishment from the league just like Lewis. In my opinion, anyway. Which actually WAS the point of this thread despite your protestations.

No, you disliked my post because you're being an ass.

 

[anditsgood]

I didn't start the thread.



Yes....




Yes...




Ok, so you don't understand the word "right". That's where the confusion is.

How is it confusing, where NFLPA gave the NFL and its commissioner the power (hence right) to suspend players within the powers of the CBA?

I think you mean its not a power they should possess, which then we have to go back to post #27 where i say maybe they were readress it in the next cba in 2020

 

[RobAllan]

Yes, you were.

No, I wasn't. Your opinion is being impacted by the fact you don't see that you're being a hypocrite AND that you're wrong.

I didn't misunderstand anything. I noted that all he has on his record is a misdemeanor, and that there's no way he'd deserve a lifetime ban over a misdemeanor. There's no misunderstanding there.

The thread is a hypothetical about what behavior we think deserves a banning in the NFL. You absolutely misunderstood, and probably intentionally as I asserted. You knew he was referencing the murder and as my AHern example pointed out, you need not be convicted of the crime in order to be dismissed for being associated with the behavior.

No, you disliked my post because you're being an ass.

I disliked your posts for all the reasons above. Mostly, that you're wrong. Again, if you choose to believe I'm an ass, that's fine. It's kinda no sweat off my back. But since you're so fond of being a "Nancy Negative," it is interesting to see how you're handling being wrong on so many different levels.

 

[Deus Irae]

How is it confusion, where NFLPA gave the NFL and its commissioner the power (hence right) to suspend players within the powers of the CBA?

I think you mean its not a power they should possess, which then we have to go back to post #27 where i say maybe they were readress it in the next cba in 2020

Go back and re-read. I'm heading out, so I don't have time for repeating the same thing a million times. The OP was talking about what the LEAGUE should be doing. You jumped in with an example of an individual team's actions. That's where all this went off the rails.

 

[Deus Irae]

No, I wasn't. Your opinion is being impacted by the fact you don't see that you're being a hypocrite AND that you're wrong.





The thread is a hypothetical about what behavior we think deserves a banning in the NFL. You absolutely misunderstood, and probably intentionally as I asserted. You knew he was referencing the murder and as my AHern example pointed out, you need not be convicted of the crime in order to be dismissed for being associated with the behavior.





I disliked your posts for all the reasons above. Mostly, that you're wrong. Again, if you choose to believe I'm an ass, that's fine. It's kinda no sweat off my back. But since you're so fond of being a "Nancy Negative," it is interesting to see how you're handling being wrong on so many different levels.

You didn't bother to read the posts. I was neither wrong nor hypocritical. You made stupid comments, and you made it personal. You were, and are, being an ass. It's that simple. I'd love to hear you cry about my post again, when the poster you're 'defending', jumped from league to team and then back again (major problem point in the discussion, in case you can't see that), in the first place, but I'm running late now..

Buh bye.

 

[anditsgood]

Go back and re-read. I'm heading out, so I don't have time for repeating the same thing a million times. The OP was talking about what the LEAGUE should be doing. You jumped in with an example of an individual team's actions. That's where all this went off the rails.

I used a teams action for what the whole league should do, sorry you missed that and construed it as off rails. I guess we will just agree to disagree.

 

[RobAllan]

You didn't bother to read the posts. You made stupid comments. You're being an ass. It's that simple. I'd love to hear you cry about my post again, when the poster you're 'defending', jumped from league to team and then back again, in the first place, but I'm running late now..

Buh bye.

You needn't reply further anyway. No sense in either of us wasting our time typing. I'm putting you on ignore so don't waste your virtual breath. It's a shame I have to miss out on the intelligent posts you make on this board because your personality is so intolerable, but it is what it is... I'm just posting this here as courtesy so you know and don't waste space in this thread with more name-calling. Posters trying to engage in a real discussion about the issue at hand are being deprived by our stupid tiff. And now I'm contributing to it as well, which is unacceptable.

Sorry to everyone else... side-trip wasn't worth it. Thought there was a real discussion to be had but it went the other way.

 

[Ring 6]

The point of this thread (at least for me) is to explore how different our views are with regard to the degree that the NFL should be in the business of punishes civil offenses. I focused with the extreme of what acts should warrant a life time ban. Some think that the NFL is not a court and should not be involved in punishments for civil crimes. Another view is to take anyone convicted of a felony in any jurisdictions and ban him for life (let's purge ourselves of those car thieves!). For others the determination depends on the league deciding the merits of the individual case, and meting out its own punishments.

Your point seems to be that the NFL should be the court of last resort. If the punishment by civil courts isn't enough, then apparently the NFL court should add to the sentence. I'm NOT being sarcastic. This is the point you're are making with regard to Lewis. Others make the same implicit argument with regard to Rice, Peterson and Hernandez.

My view is the same as DI's. Sure the league needs to have rules and punishments regarding actions that affect what happens on the field, notably performance enhancing drugs and gambling. Obviously, there are many safety regarded rules and punishments. Foe example, one could be banned for life after a certain number of concussions.

The league isn't punishing behavior it is protecting it's image.
The damage to the leagues image does not have to be consistent with the severity of the crime's punishment.
I think people are getting this way wrong by thinking the league is engaging in secondary criminal consequence.
The answer to the question frankly depends upon the public view of the act and person committing it. The NFL is not trying to augment or replace the criminal justice system they are protecting the image of the league and therefore it's bottom line.
I think it's silly to say the teams can do what they want and the league should do nothing because the league is acting on behalf of the teams and making decisions based upon what is best for all teams on issues that affect all teams.