OT: Tank Johnson question

[Mike the Brit]

When a player is fired or disciplined for an off-field brush with the law, you often hear defenders say things like "but he hasn't been convicted yet" or "but his alcohol level was below the limit so it's not really a crime" or "what ever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'?" Similarly, when a player (or broadcaster) is fired or disciplined for saying something offensive, you get a guaranteed flood of complaints: "aren't we supposed to have free speech in this country?"

Freedom of speech and the presumption of innocence protect you from mistreatment from your GOVERNMENT. The GOVERNMENT isn't supposed to punish you for voicing opinions that the public considers unpalatable. The GOVERNMENT has to prove you're guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. But a private employer can and should fire a guy for conduct that makes the employer look bad to its customers. A private employer can and should fire a guy for a pattern of conduct that demonstrates poor judgment, regardless of whether the conduct constitutes a crime. The rules and statues in question aren't the criminal code but labor law and the employee's contract.

Mmm, not to get too political, but in Europe we have laws that are supposed to protect employees against "unfair dismissal" -- an employer who simply said that the employee made the firm "look bad to its customers" would have a VERY hard time in court without something a lot more substantial (e.g. demonstrating that the behaviour in question materially interfered with the way that the employee carried out his/her duties).

That's where it is interesting from a football point of view. Haven't the NFLPA negotiated this with the league so that teams have in effect given their employees protection? I don't know the wording of the agreement, but I assume that the Bears would have to argue that the driving offence forms part of a pattern of unselfdisciplined conduct that compromised Johnson as a player -- not just that it made the NFL "look bad".

 

[Crazy Patriot Guy]

Keegs,

How many of us would still have our job if we went to prison for four months? The Bears had absolutely every right to cut him the day he went in or anytime after that. No one would have said anything. The Bears don't need a "crime" to occur at any time going forward to justify cutting him. Anything that brings judgement into question is quite enough.

Remember how it was confirmed that Pacman was at a strip club the night before his meeting with Goodell? Did he commit any crime? Absolutely not. Did his being there the night before someone was going to decide his future seem ridiculous? Absolutely yes.

Tank showed poor judgement being in that situation. It may have been 100% legal but it's still poor judgement. Again, the Bears would have been perfectly in their rights to cut him months ago. They don't need a crime to happen to "justify" cutting him now.

 

[Keegs]

So using your logic, if someone breaks into your house and steals your stuff, does something to your family....unless they are found charged and convicted they are still a fine upstanding citizen welcome to eat at your table?

Tank was a .073 he WAS impaired to the slightest degree to say the least....that IS his BAC there is no arguing this FACT. Why do you insist on being a ****** does it impress your myspace friends that much?

Ummm i never said anything about someone breaking into my house, stealing my stuff, and doing something to my family. And i certainly wouldn't make dinner for him . I don't even like making dinner for myself.
What does this have to do with Tank's Near-DUI?

And i don't appreciate you calling me a ******.

Judging by the way you completely spun this around into a made up crime and then gone so low as to personally insult me and call me a ******, i'd say you are getting pretty desperate.

We can keep going if you'd like though.

 

[Keegs]

Keegs,

How many of us would still have our job if we went to prison for four months? The Bears had absolutely every right to cut him the day he went in or anytime after that. No one would have said anything. The Bears don't need a "crime" to occur at any time going forward to justify cutting him. Anything that brings judgement into question is quite enough.

Remember how it was confirmed that Pacman was at a strip club the night before his meeting with Goodell? Did he commit any crime? Absolutely not. Did his being there the night before someone was going to decide his future seem ridiculous? Absolutely yes.

Tank showed poor judgement being in that situation. It may have been 100% legal but it's still poor judgement. Again, the Bears would have been perfectly in their rights to cut him months ago. They don't need a crime to happen to "justify" cutting him now.

thanks for the polite response.... And i do agree.
I think Tank is a moron and he's too hard to defend. I like debating it though.
I'm still sticking to my guns though that at any given time, anybody can be 1 drink away from being "legally drunk"

I'm not sure why i keep posting in this thread and why we all keep discussing it, maybe i'm too ******ed to know when to stop.

 

[PatsFan37]

Mmm, not to get too political, but in Europe we have laws that are supposed to protect employees against "unfair dismissal" -- an employer who simply said that the employee made the firm "look bad to its customers" would have a VERY hard time in court without something a lot more substantial (e.g. demonstrating that the behaviour in question materially interfered with the way that the employee carried out his/her duties).

That's where it is interesting from a football point of view. Haven't the NFLPA negotiated this with the league so that teams have in effect given their employees protection? I don't know the wording of the agreement, but I assume that the Bears would have to argue that the driving offence forms part of a pattern of unselfdisciplined conduct that compromised Johnson as a player -- not just that it made the NFL "look bad".

Since Keegs is on my ignore list, I haven't followed most of this thread, but your point and Patchick's is interesting. My understanding is that this is a union issue. The NFLPA specifically gave Goodell authority to discipline players for off-field transgressions. Teams don't have that authority. Teams that dismiss players for reasons other than performance can be subject to a player grievance, similar to the one T.O. brought against the Eagles (different in many respects but the same principle).

Since the recent uproar about player behavior, however, the NFLPA has taken a low-profile and hasn't been filing grievances as it might have in the past.

OTOH, since Tank Johnson and Pacman Jones were (along with Chris Henry) the most notorious recent offenders, it's possible the NFLPA is simply letting this one go because of who's involved. The Bears could have dismissed Tank Johnson based on his earlier arrest and conviction and did not. The NFLPA knows it would have smelled pretty bad fighting that one. I think that's why they're not fighting this subsequent dismissal.

 

[Pujo]

but what has he been charged with? (serious question)

if he doesn't get charged with a DWI or DUI your entire side's argument goes to poo in a handbasket.

I never said he was charged. I said he could be, and that it doesn't matter because he's already been released from his contract.

 

[Keegs]

I never said he was charged. I said he could be, and that it doesn't matter because he's already been released from his contract.

I know, that's what i thought we were arguing about.

this is funny:singing:

Perhaps, i'm too "******ed" to really understand the humor though.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

did he get a DUI?
what has he been charged with?

I know what you are trying.... but you are going to have to put a hell of a lot more work into it to get the result you desire.

Of course he got a DUI - as long as you are using the acronym to mean "driving under the influence." Per your own neighborhood news source, http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...bears,1,7203424.story?coll=cs-bears-headlines, Tank was cited for being impaired. In his case one presumes by alcohol or drugs, but that's actually a big presumption.

Gilbert, Ariz., police pulled Johnson over at 3:30 a.m. Friday and issued a citation for "being impaired to the slightest degree," according to police spokesman Sgt. Andrew Duncan.

Police initially stopped Johnson at the corner of Gilbert and Park avenues for going 40 m.p.h. in a 25-m.p.h. zone when the officer on the scene "made observations that led him to believe Johnson was impaired," according to Duncan.

Since there is no mention of Tank's mentally handicapped status (I'm assuming it hasn't been properly diagnosed yet), his "impairment" most likely came from an outside source, perhaps he hadn't slept in the past 48 hours and was unsteady on his feet as a result. More likely, as suggested by a slightly elevated blood alcohol level, he had been consuming alcoholic beverages - we would need the arresting officer's report to know for sure, but I'll bet the Bears front office had a copy of that report fairly soon after they began looking into Tank's situation - and that was sufficient for the officer (praying no one struck a match near Tank) to note Tank was not moving with his usual sylph-like grace and dexterity.

To sum up: Tank was cited for the local equivalent of DUI, and he got a speeding ticket. All within a very short span of time after Lovie told all his big boys to play nice on vacation. Given that Spain hasn't yet taken Arizona back, and European labor laws do not apply, Chicago decided they didn't want people named Keegs to pick on them for having players with the IQ of a tank. Such is apparently within their rights since your buddy Gene Upshaw hasn't launched a Union offensive against da Bears.

As for working to tweek your tail, I'm retired, I don't have to work. Besides, I consider you the forum version of Bobcat Goldthwait, if not as subtle in your approach to life (hard to tell if your hygiene is similar, I am downwind from you, but so are Detroit and Buffalo - can't tell if I'm smelling you, Matt Millen, or good ol' boy Ralph Wilson).

Now, if you're done acting like Mike Ditka's long lost daughter from his one night stand with Al Davis, you might consider smoking a better grade of rope before posting. :snob:

 

[Keegs]

Of course he got a DUI - as long as you are using the acronym to mean "driving under the influence." Per your own neighborhood news source, http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...bears,1,7203424.story?coll=cs-bears-headlines, Tank was cited for being impaired. In his case one presumes by alcohol or drugs, but that's actually a big presumption. Since there is no mention of Tank's mentally handicapped status (I'm assuming it hasn't been properly diagnosed yet), his "impairment" most likely came from an outside source, perhaps he hadn't slept in the past 48 hours and was unsteady on his feet as a result. More likely, as suggested by a slightly elevated blood alcohol level, he had been consuming alcoholic beverages - we would need the arresting officer's report to know for sure, but I'll bet the Bears front office had a copy of that report fairly soon after they began looking into Tank's situation - and that was sufficient for the officer (praying no one struck a match near Tank) to note Tank was not moving with his usual sylph-like grace and dexterity.

To sum up: Tank was cited for the local equivalent of DUI, and he got a speeding ticket. All within a very short span of time after Lovie told all his big boys to play nice on vacation. Given that Spain hasn't yet taken Arizona back, and European labor laws do not apply, Chicago decided they didn't want people named Keegs to pick on them for having players with the IQ of a tank. Such is apparently within their rights since your buddy Gene Upshaw hasn't launched a Union offensive against da Bears.

As for working to tweek your tail, I'm retired, I don't have to work. Besides, I consider you the forum version of Bobcat Goldthwait, if not as subtle in your approach to life (hard to tell if your hygiene is similar, I am downwind from you, but so are Detroit and Buffalo - can't tell if I'm smelling you, Matt Millen, or good ol' boy Ralph Wilson).

Now, if you're done acting like Mike Ditka's long lost daughter from his one night stand with Al Davis, you might consider smoking a better grade of rope before posting. :snob:

nice Dennis Miller-esque post.

i liked it.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Since Keegs is on my ignore list, I haven't followed most of this thread, but your point and Patchick's is interesting. My understanding is that this is a union issue. The NFLPA specifically gave Goodell authority to discipline players for off-field transgressions. Teams don't have that authority. Teams that dismiss players for reasons other than performance can be subject to a player grievance, similar to the one T.O. brought against the Eagles (different in many respects but the same principle).

Since the recent uproar about player behavior, however, the NFLPA has taken a low-profile and hasn't been filing grievances as it might have in the past.

OTOH, since Tank Johnson and Pacman Jones were (along with Chris Henry) the most notorious recent offenders, it's possible the NFLPA is simply letting this one go because of who's involved. The Bears could have dismissed Tank Johnson based on his earlier arrest and conviction and did not. The NFLPA knows it would have smelled pretty bad fighting that one. I think that's why they're not fighting this subsequent dismissal.

I think you are correct that teams cannot necessarily "discipline" players, except in performance cases (like not reporting or reporting late), but I believe they are free to cut players without reason or recourse. I don't think the union is interested in filing grievances against a player being given his unconditional release to FA as long as he's been paid whatever he was owed under the terms of his contract and the team isn't looking to withold or recoup money from him as a result of releasing him.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

thanks for the polite response.... And i do agree.
I think Tank is a moron and he's too hard to defend. I like debating it though.
I'm still sticking to my guns though that at any given time, anybody can be 1 drink away from being "legally drunk"

I'm not sure why i keep posting in this thread and why we all keep discussing it, maybe i'm too ******ed to know when to stop.

Every once in a while keegs you say something downright insightful...

 

[Keegs]

Every once in a while keegs you say something downright insightful...

I'm glad you applaud the insults.

Apparently, on this board, it's ok to personally insult some people, but not others.

Or perhaps i'm mistaken, What exactly are the rules on that?

 

[PATSNUTme]

I'm glad you applaud the insults.

Apparently, on this board, it's ok to personally insult some people, but not others.

Or perhaps i'm mistaken, What exactly are the rules on that?

You need a special password to see those rules. You have to have 7000+ post. You have to swear a blood oath that you will ever reveal who is on the list that is OK to insult.

If you are not on the list that is OK to insult, then you can't be insulted. I hope this is now clear.

 

[patchick]

I think you are correct that teams cannot necessarily "discipline" players, except in performance cases (like not reporting or reporting late), but I believe they are free to cut players without reason or recourse. I don't think the union is interested in filing grievances against a player being given his unconditional release to FA as long as he's been paid whatever he was owed under the terms of his contract and the team isn't looking to withold or recoup money from him as a result of releasing him.

It's certainly murky, which is why I waved my hand vaguely in the direction of "labor laws" and "employment contracts." Mike the Brit, in general U.S. labor law allows employers a lot more leeway in dismissals than Western Europe (especially France, where hiring an employee seems like a business marriage contract). There are specific reasons you CAN'T base your decision on -- a pattern of hiring/firing based on age, race etc. would constitute illegal discrimination. But there's generally broad discretion for dismissals based on individual performance and conduct. Even so, firings are not taken lightly. I was once a manager at a big company and had to fire an employee who was a MAJOR problem. The HR department made sure I spent days meticulously documenting his erratic behavior, misuse of sensitive data, etc. before they would take action. Union contracts can take it to a whole new level of protections, too. The Bears seem to be counting on the CBA's vague language about conduct detrimental to the team to cover them. I also wonder whether they could argue that the fact that Johnson will miss more than half the season for disciplinary reasons affects his value as a player and thus made his contract not worth carrying on performance grounds? A little squirrelly, but possible.

 

[37Harrison]

FACT #1 (yet to be disproved)
At some point, someone is going to be 1 drink away from being legally drunk.
-Everyone on the planet, at some point, can be 1 drink away from being legally drunk. this is a fact.

if someone never drinks, then the whole "one drink away from being legally drunk) doesn't apply. It can't apply. the person doesn't drink.

:bricks:

What was that you were saying?

 

[Keegs]

:bricks:

What was that you were saying?

everyone on the planet can be 1 drink away from being legally drunk.

for that to happen, the person who doesn't drink has to first become a "drinker".

then at some point, you bet they'll be 1 drink away from being legally drunk.

It doesn't apply until that person has their first alcoholic beverage.

 

[Keegs]

You need a special password to see those rules. You have to have 7000+ post. You have to swear a blood oath that you will ever reveal who is on the list that is OK to insult.

If you are not on the list that is OK to insult, then you can't be insulted. I hope this is now clear.

ohhhhhh ok.

well at least there are some rules behind it.

rules im probably too ******ed to understand

 

[Patriotic]

rules im probably too ******ed to understand

I'll drink to that. In fact, after reading this thread, I'll drink to anything.

 

[Keegs]

I'll drink to that. In fact, after reading this thread, I'll drink to anything.

haha

nice

 

[Keegs]

http://profootballtalk.com/

No new charges for Tank

Cut for speeding.

He was not charged with any form of drinking and driving.

He was not charged for being impaired to the "slightest degree"

whattaya know???

I'M RIGHT AGAIN

thanks for playing kids