Incognito suspended indefinitely by Dolphins

[Ring 6]

Read the article. He called out the black players who spoke to Salguero. just like I did. Just like countless black writers in the black news media.

Umm, there was ONE player who made that comment. It was actually a QUOTE.
Jason Whitlock is an idiot, and a racist, so if he agrees with you, then you should be concerned.

And yeah, jumping to conclusions when the guy molests a woman on the golf course, signs a confidentiality agreement, and the whole case is exactly like all the other criminal problems he's had over his career, including with the bouncer last summer, except this time he has the money to pay to get himself out of trouble, whereas back in his earlier days, he was thrown out of schools for this stuff. And it happened to him repeatedly. He got the heave-ho from the Rams--the Bills wanted nothing to do with him. He was only in Buffalo for 2 games. And here we have a confidentiality agreement with a woman who had to come against this serial freak, and it's still not enough for you.

I'm starting to understand your approach now.
You don't like Incognito, so you assume the worst of every piece of information, so then when you add up all the worst case scenarios there is so much evidence that he is a bad, bad man, that you use this as proof of the worst case assumption on the next piece of information.

 

[patsfanincleveland]

Slightly off topic from the recent back-and-forth, but it does pertain to Incognito:

I have heard many opinions both locally and nationally that a person being bullied (such as Martin) should respond physically ('punch him in the face').

Why do so many assume that will fix the problem?

Typically the person doing the bullying is physically stronger, far more aggressive, is and is a much more experienced fighter. Even if the person being bullied finds it within himself to become aggressive, the two other factors work against him. Bullies slant the odds in their favor by finding someone, who even if he does fight back, will be at a distinct disadvantage. There is also the implied threat of multiple people versus one; 'my guys have my back, but nobody has yours'.

Yet I keep hearing on the radio and television, and reading in print, that Martin should have simply fought Incognito with the implication that if he did that it would absolutely cure everything.

To me there is just as much (or more) of a chance that Incognito would have beat the crap out of him, emboldening him further. If Incognito did not see Martin as 'one of us' (which is what appears to be the case), then he may not have been interested in 'toughening Martin up', but instead was trying to run him off and out of town.

NFLN interviewed one of the Dolphin players (Hartline?) and he mentioned that two weeks ago, Martin got into a fight with Dion Jordan and Ingognito came rushing to Martin's defense.

Would a "bully" rush to someone's defense that they bully?

Martin can't fight but fights Dion Jordan?

Maybe it's time to consider and unconsidered option......There is no bully and maybe faced with failure the first time in life......a football player leaves needing as Emmitt Smith says....an escape goat that is brought on in part by Incognito's poor leadership in this case.

 

[BKBroiler]

Have any details come out about the lawyers claim of Martin being viciously assaulted by a teammate?

Not yet. Although if it comes out that the "vicious attack" is referring to the recent scuffle with Dion Jordan during practice that the Miami players mentioned, then his career in the NFL is over. It would speak volumes to Martin's character that he chose the guy who was first to his defense in that fight (and a friend) as the fall guy for this entire situation. There's no way any other team would take Martin because none of their players would be able to actually trust him and trust / knowing someone has your back is huge in football (especially on the OL).

 

[Ring 6]

LOL, I notice you never commented on the Whitlock article that just blew you out of the water. It said the same things I am saying. That Whitlock article is EVERYWHERE in black-culture magazines this morning with people praising it. Love to hear your thoughts.

.

So I read the article. As expected, Whitlock is a racist hack.
His argument: The root of the problem is black people being incarcerated. Once they are incarcirated, then they become thugs, and call each other the N word, and 'being black' means acting like a thug and calling each other the N word.
One passage:

I'm black. And I totally understand the genesis of this particular brand of stupidity and self-hatred. Mass Incarceration, its bastard child, Hurricane Illegitimacy, and their marketing firm, commercial hip-hop music, have created a culture that perpetrates the idea that authentic blackness is criminal, savage, uneducated and irresponsible. The tenets of white supremacy and bigotry have been injected into popular youth culture. The blackest things a black man can do are loudly spew the N-word publicly and react violently to the slightest sign of disrespect or disagreement.

which leads to:

But what makes me want to check into a mental hospital is Miami's black players' unconditional love of Incognito and indifference to Martin.
It points to our fundamental lack of knowledge of our own history in this country. We think the fake tough guy, the ex-con turned rhetoric spewer was more courageous than the educated pacifist who won our liberation standing in the streets, absorbing repeated ass-whippings, jail and a white assassin's bullet. We fell for the okeydoke

Which adds up to his belief that the black players should choose Martin over Incognito because of race.

Whitlock is a racist.

Then he goes on to state he does not know Jonathan Martin, but then he goes on to describe how Martin felt, why he did what he did, and what he was thinking.

This article is pure garbage.

 

[upstater1]

Umm, there was ONE player who made that comment. It was actually a QUOTE.

No, Salguero said black players.

Jason Whitlock is an idiot, and a racist, so if he agrees with you, then you should be concerned.

Lots of people in the black media are highlighting it and agreeing with it. I'm as deranged as Tony Dungy and Tom Jackson who said this mornign that Whitlock was exactly right in that article.

I'm starting to understand your approach now.
You don't like Incognito, so you assume the worst of every piece of information, so then when you add up all the worst case scenarios there is so much evidence that he is a bad, bad man, that you use this as proof of the worst case assumption on the next piece of information.

I assume the worst? What's the best of a guy who copped to kicking a smaller student in the face for accidentally opening the door of a bathroom when he was in there with a girl? A guy who copped beat the hell out of teammate who got emotional when he was named a starter? What's the "best" scenario you can paint of this confidentiality agreement? Where a police report exists that describes in detail this guy's actions, and he paid the claimant? Really he paid her after she said all that against him? He didn't contest it?

 

[MassPats38]

Dude, you called me out on not reading the report carefully.

Did I, or was I calling you out for not reading my post carefully when I referred to the quoted portion of that article from your own post and you went into histrionics out of apparent shock and amazement? Or possibly flying forward with an angry mob mentality and definitive conclusions when virtually nothing is known of this story? Feel free to read the responses, and I won't even give you the "roll eyes" for repeating the mistake here.

As you may recall, you read a hypothetical I offered on what could have happened, based on limited facts, and tried to blast me for claiming there was consensual sex in this matter, professing amazement I could say such a thing based on these 'facts' from that article. I never offered that as a fact, and feel free to revisit the post and point out where I did. That is why I called you out.

And to make this clear from my previous post, the presence or absence of a non-disclosure agreement, if there is one in fact, doesn't confirm anything with regard to this story (she could be threatening to go to the press with a claim he shoved a live dolphin up his own orifice, which is embarrassing but not illegal, and he bought her off - once again, "I don't know" what the truth is).

And I assume when you say 'report' you mean the article author's statement, not the police report. Find the official police report or DA's position, and you will be closer to the truth and can offer the same for your conclusion. Limited facts from some journalist does not mean squat. Why? Man comes home, forces open the door to the house and has sex with the woman in the house. It's rape, right? Not if the two are married, the man lost his key and his wife was not home, and the rest was mutual. Do the missing facts tell that story correctly? Yes. If written in a newspaper, is the first story libel? No. The facts are true. My point in critical thinking was the facts omitted are huge, because the woman could be in the wrong in a false accusation or Incognito could. You don't know the truth, so stop acting like you do in labeling Incognito a 'molester'.

I suspect nobody here likes Incognito. He is an a-hole, and most would happily make him wear suit made of raw steak and thrown out into a pack of hungry dingos in Australia just for the sheer entertainment of it. Frankly, I would pay to see it. That's not the point. The hits you are taking here are more a result of your claiming to 'know' what Incognito did or didn't do on a particular occasion. You don't. You don't know the reaction of the individuals involved, and you don't know what the understandings of those involved was at the time.

 

[upstater1]

So I read the article. As expected, Whitlock is a racist hack.
His argument: The root of the problem is black people being incarcerated. Once they are incarcirated, then they become thugs, and call each other the N word, and 'being black' means acting like a thug and calling each other the N word.
One passage:


which leads to:


Which adds up to his belief that the black players should choose Martin over Incognito because of race.

Whitlock is a racist.

Then he goes on to state he does not know Jonathan Martin, but then he goes on to describe how Martin felt, why he did what he did, and what he was thinking.

This article is pure garbage.

Tony Dungy is a racist.
Tom Jackson is a racist.
All three of these black guys are racist for saying the same thing.
Good going Andy.

 

[robbomango]

Regarding the financial stuff, I jumped the gun a bit on that, the Vegas trip sounds very reasonable. Still not down with asking rookies to fork over 2-3% of pay for a dinner, on the flip side it sounds like a fun celebration as long as the dollar amounts aren't to excessive. That's where having good sound leadership comes in, from my experience the best leaders have a good head on their shoulders and don't let things go to far having a solid pulse on group dynamics.

 

[Fencer]

Slightly off topic from the recent back-and-forth, but it does pertain to Incognito:

I have heard many opinions both locally and nationally that a person being bullied (such as Martin) should respond physically ('punch him in the face').

Why do so many assume that will fix the problem?

Typically the person doing the bullying is physically stronger, far more aggressive, is and is a much more experienced fighter. Even if the person being bullied finds it within himself to become aggressive, the two other factors work against him. Bullies slant the odds in their favor by finding someone, who even if he does fight back, will be at a distinct disadvantage. There is also the implied threat of multiple people versus one; 'my guys have my back, but nobody has yours'.

Yet I keep hearing on the radio and television, and reading in print, that Martin should have simply fought Incognito with the implication that if he did that it would absolutely cure everything.

To me there is just as much (or more) of a chance that Incognito would have beat the crap out of him, emboldening him further. If Incognito did not see Martin as 'one of us' (which is what appears to be the case), then he may not have been interested in 'toughening Martin up', but instead was trying to run him off and out of town.

I'm very much on Martin's side in all this, but even so, it's likely that Martin's teammates didn't realize nearly the extent to which they were bullying him.

Also, fights between teammates happen in football fairly frequently, and I've never heard of one turning into a gang beatdown.

The uniquely aggressive environment of football does affect pretty much all considerations here.

 

[Ring 6]

No, Salguero said black players.

Are we going to go through this again?
Yesterday it was he said NOT BLACK then LESS BLACK then hours later after I showed you the quote, you said Incognito was blacker is what was said even though you argued against it all day.
He said he spoke to many players, he did not say many players said that.
He gave a quote from one player which is what he used to draw the conclusion.
you really meed to learn to comprehend what you read.

Lots of people in the black media are highlighting it and agreeing with it. I'm as deranged as Tony Dungy and Tom Jackson who said this mornign that Whitlock was exactly right in that article.

Where did I say you were deranged?
I do find it funny that you feel you have the pulse of how the black community feels about the article.
I'm sure there are others that didn't like it. Am I supposed to seed my opinion to Dungy and Jackson? By the way, can yuo link me to them saying he was EXACTLY RIGHT IN THE ARTICLE?

I assume the worst? What's the best of a guy who copped to kicking a smaller student in the face for accidentally opening the door of a bathroom when he was in there with a girl? A guy who copped beat the hell out of teammate who got emotional when he was named a starter? What's the "best" scenario you can paint of this confidentiality agreement? Where a police report exists that describes in detail this guy's actions, and he paid the claimant? Really he paid her after she said all that against him? He didn't contest it?

Again, you assume the facts you don't know, and then use what that adds up to in order to say bad guy = guilty of whatever you say he did.
Being an a-hole is not a piece of evidence in whether something happened or not.

 

[Ring 6]

Tony Dungy is a racist.
Tom Jackson is a racist.
All three of these black guys are racist for saying the same thing.
Good going Andy.

If Tony Dungy said that the black players make him want to check into a mental institution because they liked a white guy more than a black guy, then he is a racist too. Same with Jackson.
The problem here is that Whitlock IS a racist, and YOU just transfered his beliefs to Dungy and Jackson, which we all know is not accurate.

Please tell me how Whitlocks article would be received if you flipped everything and he, Martin, and the other players were white and Incognito was black.

 

[patsfanincleveland]

Tony Dungy is a racist.
Tom Jackson is a racist.
All three of these black guys are racist for saying the same thing.
Good going Andy.

Andy is correct.

By agreeing with Jason Whitlock, you prove his point.

Dungy and Jackson merely expound on that.

 

[Ring 6]

Tony Dungy is a racist.
Tom Jackson is a racist.
All three of these black guys are racist for saying the same thing.
Good going Andy.

You have an incredible ability to read something and then call it something totally different to avoid legitimately supporting yuor argument and to sensationalize.

 

[Zeus]

I am by no means a fan of Jason Whitlock, but his article on this topic is thought provoking and deserving of a careful read. He is extremely critical of a culture that not only sees violence as the sole means of adjudicating disputes, but that also views education and achievement as undesirable.

Just my opinion, but I didn't find his piece at all racist.

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

Sure it does. If the victim won't testify, the criminal case goes away. It happens all the time. Rather than go through a trial where you get dragged through the mud and there is no guarantee of a guilty verdict, the victim accepts a payment from the accused, who is looking to keep his reputation intact. It's not a satisfactory system, but it is the system...

No, it doesn't work like that. Criminal law trumps civil law. In fact you could be in violation of the law by not reporting a crime even under a confidentiality agreement. You can't murder someone and pay the witnesses to not testify and sign a confidentiality agreement.

Like it or not she reported it, the police had all the information she gave them and they didn't find enough evidence to press charges.

 

[Fencer]

No, it doesn't work like that. Criminal law trumps civil law. In fact you could be in violation of the law by not reporting a crime even under a confidentiality agreement. You can't murder someone and pay the witnesses to not testify and sign a confidentiality agreement.

Like it or not she reported it, the police had all the information she gave them and they didn't find enough evidence to press charges.

Perhaps, but in practice if you pay off the victim, a lot of criminal problems can go away. Think Kobe Bryant's rape case. Or, for a different kind of Florida issue, think Donte' Stallworth's vehicular homicide.

 

[upstater1]

Are we going to go through this again?
Yesterday it was he said NOT BLACK then LESS BLACK then hours later after I showed you the quote, you said Incognito was blacker is what was said even though you argued against it all day.
He said he spoke to many players, he did not say many players said that.
He gave a quote from one player which is what he used to draw the conclusion.
you really meed to learn to comprehend what you read.

Already addressed all this. When you say a black guy isn't as black as a white pig like Incognito, you're saying he is less than black. It's the same thing. And no I didn't say what you said I said. I said all three things repeatedly. Go back several pages after you provided the actual quote, and you'll see that I was saying the exact same quote (that I heard Salguero say in a live interview, and I said it verbatim) AND that Martin was considered less than black (by the black players who spoke to Salguero). Regardless, I think Whitlock is right, and a lot of people are agreeing with Whitlock. I'm not a big fan of the prison metaphor and it does nothing for me, but I absolutely agree that there's bigotry involved when the definition of a black man is limited to things that Martin apparently isn't. And Tony Dungy and Tom Jackson agree with that too.

I do find it funny that you feel you have the pulse of how the black community feels about the article.
I'm sure there are others that didn't like it. Am I supposed to seed my opinion to Dungy and Jackson? By the way, can yuo link me to them saying he was EXACTLY RIGHT IN THE ARTICLE?

You said I was racist for saying what Whitlock said, then you called Whitlock a racist, then Tony Dungy tweeted this to Whitlock:

https://twitter.com/WhitlockJason/status/398856063249702912

"Tony Dungy: Didn't see Tom Jackson's response but @WhitlockJason has a great article on the Dolphins situation."

Again, you assume the facts you don't know, and then use what that adds up to in order to say bad guy = guilty of whatever you say he did.
Being an a-hole is not a piece of evidence in whether something happened or not.

Richie Incognito copped to a plea for bashing a kid's head-in for opening a bathroom door, Incognito was thrown out of school for beating up a kid in the locker room who got emotional when named starter, Richie Incognito entered into a confidentiality agreement with a woman (a volunteer at a charity event) who accused him of jamming a golf club in her vagina while on the golf course, rubbing himself on her, and tossing water in her face, knocking her glasses off with a golf club.

These are all facts.

 

[PP2]

Was this already posted:

Incognito held Oline meetings at strip club | National Football Post

If so, my mistake. I'm just glad I solved the big mystery of why the quarterback situation in Miami has always been a revolving door.

 

[upstater1]

Andy is correct.

By agreeing with Jason Whitlock, you prove his point.

Dungy and Jackson merely expound on that.

Yep, we are all racists. Good going. Whitlock, Dungy and I. Rampaging racists.

 

[PatsDeb]

No, it doesn't work like that. Criminal law trumps civil law. In fact you could be in violation of the law by not reporting a crime even under a confidentiality agreement. You can't murder someone and pay the witnesses to not testify and sign a confidentiality agreement.

Like it or not she reported it, the police had all the information she gave them and they didn't find enough evidence to press charges.

I can tell you that it absolutely works like this. Murder is a different crime and paying a witness is not the same thing as compensating the live victim of a sex crime. Many, many people would rather, at the end of the day, get some money rather than go through the agony of a trial (including intense questioning, either in a deposition or on the witness stand about your sex life, what exactly this perpetrator did to you, etc. all of which can be fair game in such circumtances). By the same token, perpetrators, particularly if money is no object (or not much of one) would much rather pay a chunk of change than go through the embarassment (and loss of reputation) on the other side. Lawyers for both these folks, if they are doing their job right and know their respective client, will tell them so.

I don't know the specifics of the case, but as an attorney looking in from the outside, I can tell you if there is a confidentiality agreement and the police dropped it, that means Mr. Incognito paid some amount (who knows how much - depends on the victim and what actually happened) to impersonate his name.