The Liberal Assault on the NFL

[Value Buy]

Sept 22, 2014 11:06:06 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Clinton cheated on his wife, sexually harassed several other women, committed perjury, and was quite credibly accused of rape.

I never saw any credible accounts of rape.

Yes he would have put his thing in a bowl of soup if it was warm, but he did it with willing partners who were happy to bang a powerful man.  

But what he did was not a felony. Immoral and sleazy and degrading to his wife and child, but not a felony.

Punching a woman unconscious = felony.

Second sentence.......and this is the crux of the NFL problem. The perps always have a willing partner who is willing to be in the spotlight, and thus, become the abused spouse/girlfriend.

It does not make it right, but we all know it happens.

Even if she left him yesterday, there are a dozen women waiting to be the next one.

They love the spotlight as much as the player.

I think we have to also look at women and their reasons why they permit the abuse to continue......

Flame away.......

[happyhoix]

The perps always have a willing partner who is willing to be in the spotlight, and thus, become the abused spouse/girlfriend.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

Do you mean that some women are so eager to be married to a famous NFL player that they tolerate the beatings, if that comes with the job?

Or do you mean there are women who love playing the victims so they look for a man who will beat them so they get their moment in the spotlight as the poor victim?

[Deleted]

Sept 22, 2014 11:06:06 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Clinton cheated on his wife, sexually harassed several other women, committed perjury, and was quite credibly accused of rape.

I never saw any credible accounts of rape.

Yes he would have put his thing in a bowl of soup if it was warm, but he did it with willing partners who were happy to bang a powerful man.  

But what he did was not a felony. Immoral and sleazy and degrading to his wife and child, but not a felony.

Punching a woman unconscious = felony.

Punching a woman unconcious is not an automatic felony in this case. I saw the video like everyone else. They were having a drunken brawl in the elevator. Because she lost doesn't make him a criminal. If she wasn't physically fighting also, then you might get a conviction. This isn't my view on domestic violence which I abhor, but a view on what happened in light of the law. What the NFL decided to do with him, or the media, has nothing to do with breaking the law.

[Angel!]

Sept 22, 2014 11:40:23 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Sept 22, 2014 11:06:06 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I never saw any credible accounts of rape.

Yes he would have put his thing in a bowl of soup if it was warm, but he did it with willing partners who were happy to bang a powerful man.  

But what he did was not a felony. Immoral and sleazy and degrading to his wife and child, but not a felony.

Punching a woman unconscious = felony.

Second sentence.......and this is the crux of the NFL problem. The perps always have a willing partner who is willing to be in the spotlight, and thus, become the abused spouse/girlfriend.

It does not make it right, but we all know it happens.

Even if she left him yesterday, there are a dozen women waiting to be the next one.

They love the spotlight as much as the player.

I think we have to also look at women and their reasons why they permit the abuse to continue......

Flame away.......

That isn't the only reason why women stay. If it was this country wouldn't have a domestic violence problem because very few offenders are rich & famous..

And yes, let's blame the women.  After all, it has to be their fault somehow.* 

*hint, hint...this is part of the reason they stay.  They are told it was their fault & they believe it.  If only I hadn't done X, then he wouldn't have had to punch me out.  This won't happen again because I won't make X mistake again.  

[Angel!]

Sept 22, 2014 13:28:09 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Sept 22, 2014 11:06:06 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I never saw any credible accounts of rape.

Yes he would have put his thing in a bowl of soup if it was warm, but he did it with willing partners who were happy to bang a powerful man.  

But what he did was not a felony. Immoral and sleazy and degrading to his wife and child, but not a felony.

Punching a woman unconscious = felony.

Punching a woman unconcious is not an automatic felony in this case. I saw the video like everyone else. They were having a drunken brawl in the elevator. Because she lost doesn't make him a criminal. If she wasn't physically fighting also, then you might get a conviction. This isn't my view on domestic violence which I abhor, but a view on what happened in light of the law. What the NFL decided to do with him, or the media, has nothing to do with breaking the law.

Because he used ridiculous force is what made it criminal. Self-defense means reasonable force. A knock-out punch to a girly attack is not reasonable force. 

He would get a conviction, guaranteed.  That is why he took the deal.  He has a lawyer & isn't stupid...he was going to lose if he fought it.

And your statement makes me think you know very little about domestic violence.  That is ok, most people who haven't lived it don't really understand it.

[greeniis10]

Sept 22, 2014 11:40:23 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Sept 22, 2014 11:06:06 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I never saw any credible accounts of rape.

Yes he would have put his thing in a bowl of soup if it was warm, but he did it with willing partners who were happy to bang a powerful man.  

But what he did was not a felony. Immoral and sleazy and degrading to his wife and child, but not a felony.

Punching a woman unconscious = felony.

Second sentence.......and this is the crux of the NFL problem. The perps always have a willing partner who is willing to be in the spotlight, and thus, become the abused spouse/girlfriend.

It does not make it right, but we all know it happens.

Even if she left him yesterday, there are a dozen women waiting to be the next one.

They love the spotlight as much as the player.

I think we have to also look at women and their reasons why they permit the abuse to continue......

Flame away.......

No flames from me.  I'm a female and I agree with this.  Obviously, domestic violence is a complicated case-by-case issue and I'm in no way supporting it or making excuses.  But, it is sadly true that most of these guys, even after incidences like this, do not stay single.

And I've been in a physically abusive marriage.  It's never as easy as "just leave" but it sure taught me valuable lessons so that I would NEVER fall into the same mess again.

[Deleted]

Sept 22, 2014 13:37:23 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Sept 22, 2014 13:28:09 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Punching a woman unconcious is not an automatic felony in this case. I saw the video like everyone else. They were having a drunken brawl in the elevator. Because she lost doesn't make him a criminal. If she wasn't physically fighting also, then you might get a conviction. This isn't my view on domestic violence which I abhor, but a view on what happened in light of the law. What the NFL decided to do with him, or the media, has nothing to do with breaking the law.

Because he used ridiculous force is what made it criminal. Self-defense means reasonable force. A knock-out punch to a girly attack is not reasonable force. 

He would get a conviction, guaranteed.  That is why he took the deal.  He has a lawyer & isn't stupid...he was going to lose if he fought it.

And your statement makes me think you know very little about domestic violence.  That is ok, most people who haven't lived it don't really understand it.

My statement had nothing to do with my experience's with domestic violence. Was he convicted of a felony ? No ? Looks like it wasn't an automatic felony because he hit a girl. I was pointing out the nonsense of that statement. There is no such thing as an "automatic felony" for hitting a girl. I could continue with how I think your statement makes me think you know little about the law, but I prefer to comment on the subject, not a posters possible experiences.  (The reason a plea deal is accepted, is because the prosecution feels they might not get a conviction)

[happyhoix]

My statement had nothing to do with my experience's with domestic violence. Was he convicted of a felony ? No ? Looks like it wasn't an automatic felony because he hit a girl.

He wasn't convicted of a felony because the DA's office allowed him to plead to a lesser charge, and he got something like six months of counseling instead of jail time. I suspect if he was not a big NFL star that deal would not have been offered. 

  

[happyhoix]

That isn't the only reason why women stay. If it was this country wouldn't have a domestic violence problem because very few offenders are rich & famous..

I think Value Buy meant that in this particular situation the woman was willing to take the physical abuse because she was able to live the glamourous life of a NFL wife, and since the woman willingly exchanged a nice lifestyle for abuse, the rest of us should just butt out, because that was her decision. 

Which reminds me of the Michael Jackson case, where he evidently paid the parents of some young boys to allow the boys to stay overnight at his ranch, and showered the boys themselves with amazing gifts, in exchange for sex. If the parents were happy to get the money, and the boys were happy to get all the wonderful gifts, does it make that particular exchange acceptable to the rest of us? Since both sides got what they wanted and no one complained?

Society has to defend people who may not understand they are victims. Certainly some women, indoctrinated with the idea that, if violence occurs, it's because they provoked it somehow, or that somehow violence is just a normal part of married life, may not understand that they shouldn't tolerate living in a situation where they are subject to physical violence. That doesn't mean the rest of us just ignore what's going on, anymore than we should ignore sexual abuse of kids, even if the kids aren't complaining.

 

[Deleted]

Sept 22, 2014 14:11:45 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

My statement had nothing to do with my experience's with domestic violence. Was he convicted of a felony ? No ? Looks like it wasn't an automatic felony because he hit a girl.

He wasn't convicted of a felony because the DA's office allowed him to plead to a lesser charge, and he got something like six months of counseling instead of jail time. I suspect if he was not a big NFL star that deal would not have been offered. 

  

Same thing in different words, I'm flexible. They wouldn't of "allowed" a plea deal if they were sure of a conviction. The "big star" reason is just conjecture on your part. Regardless, there is still no "automatic felony" for hitting a female. That was my only point of comment.

[happyhoix]

Sept 22, 2014 14:23:23 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Sept 22, 2014 14:11:45 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

He wasn't convicted of a felony because the DA's office allowed him to plead to a lesser charge, and he got something like six months of counseling instead of jail time. I suspect if he was not a big NFL star that deal would not have been offered. 

  

Same thing in different words, I'm flexible. They wouldn't of "allowed" a plea deal if they were sure of a conviction. The "big star" reason is just conjecture on your part. Regardless, there is still no "automatic felony" for hitting a female. That was my only point of comment.

Not yet, but at least in New Jersey the legislature is investigating whether or not they want to continue to allow men who beat their wives to be able to participate in the program that allows domestic abusers to enter a pre-trial intervention program to avoid prosecution:

State Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester) also called on the state Attorney General's Office to investigate how the prosecutor's office handled the case and said it might be time to revisit the state law governing the program.

www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/09/nj_assembly_passes_domestic_violence_bills_amid_ray_rice_scandal.html

Nothing quite like video of a man punching his GF in the face and then dragging her limp body out of an elevator like a sack of dirty laundry to make people wonder if six months of counseling is really an acceptable punishment.

[Deleted]

Sept 22, 2014 14:32:49 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Sept 22, 2014 14:23:23 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Same thing in different words, I'm flexible. They wouldn't of "allowed" a plea deal if they were sure of a conviction. The "big star" reason is just conjecture on your part. Regardless, there is still no "automatic felony" for hitting a female. That was my only point of comment.

Not yet, but at least in New Jersey the legislature is investigating whether or not they want to continue to allow men who beat their wives to be able to participate in the program that allows domestic abusers to enter a pre-trial intervention program to avoid prosecution:

State Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester) also called on the state Attorney General's Office to investigate how the prosecutor's office handled the case and said it might be time to revisit the state law governing the program.

www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/09/nj_assembly_passes_domestic_violence_bills_amid_ray_rice_scandal.html

Nothing quite like video of a man punching his GF in the face and then dragging her limp body out of an elevator like a sack of dirty laundry to make people wonder if six months of counseling is really an acceptable punishment.

Let me get on the record that I'm really against domestic or any violence. When living in Illinois I used to watch the woman two doors down abuse her small in stature husband for years until divorcing. Back to law, that type of change is going to allow a lot of abusers to get off and not have a conviction record for a possible second time around (3,4,5,etc.). A person that is stuck in the abuse cycle seldom stops with one offense. It could have the effect of exacerbating the problem. Hurry up, gotta do something, law passage often has unforseen consequences.

[happyhoix]

Back to law, that type of change is going to allow a lot of abusers to get off and not have a conviction record for a possible second time around (3,4,5,etc.). A person that is stuck in the abuse cycle seldom stops with one offense. It could have the effect of exacerbating the problem. Hurry up, gotta do something, law passage often has unforseen consequences.

I don't understand this comment?

The way the law stands now, people charged with a 3rd or 4th level crime can opt ask to go into pre-trial intervention that skips the criminal charges, slaps on some counseling and leaves them without a criminal record - which is what you're saying is bad, correct?

The state senator is proposing people charged with domestic abuse should not be allowed to do the pre-trial diversion, which forces them to go through the criminal process and end up with a criminal record - and that's what you said you want, correct?

[Angel!]

Sept 22, 2014 14:01:34 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Sept 22, 2014 13:37:23 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Because he used ridiculous force is what made it criminal. Self-defense means reasonable force. A knock-out punch to a girly attack is not reasonable force. 

He would get a conviction, guaranteed.  That is why he took the deal.  He has a lawyer & isn't stupid...he was going to lose if he fought it.

And your statement makes me think you know very little about domestic violence.  That is ok, most people who haven't lived it don't really understand it.

My statement had nothing to do with my experience's with domestic violence. Was he convicted of a felony ? No ? Looks like it wasn't an automatic felony because he hit a girl. I was pointing out the nonsense of that statement. There is no such thing as an "automatic felony" for hitting a girl. I could continue with how I think your statement makes me think you know little about the law, but I prefer to comment on the subject, not a posters possible experiences.  (The reason a plea deal is accepted, is because the prosecution feels they might not get a conviction)

I wasn't referrring or responding to the part where you said automatic felony.  Punching a girl is not an automatic felony you are correct.

I was responding to the part where you called it a drunken brawl & seemed to imply that he didn't do anything wrong.  "Because she lost doesn't make him a criminal"  Maybe I misunderstood (I apologize if I did), but it really seemed like you were implying this was merely self-defense & not domestic violence.  And that is what I was responding to, because if that is your view, then I am going to say you indeed don't understand domestic violence.

[Angel!]

Sept 22, 2014 14:23:23 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Sept 22, 2014 14:11:45 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

He wasn't convicted of a felony because the DA's office allowed him to plead to a lesser charge, and he got something like six months of counseling instead of jail time. I suspect if he was not a big NFL star that deal would not have been offered. 

  

Same thing in different words, I'm flexible. They wouldn't of "allowed" a plea deal if they were sure of a conviction. The "big star" reason is just conjecture on your part. Regardless, there is still no "automatic felony" for hitting a female. That was my only point of comment.

Sure they would.  Ask swamp, a plea deal is almost always offered.  It is far easier than a trial & less time consuming.  It has nothing to do with likelihood of conviction, but getting him through the system the quickest & easiest way possible.

[billisonboard]

Sept 22, 2014 14:21:22 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

...

Society has to defend people who may not understand they are victims. Certainly some women, indoctrinated with the idea that, if violence occurs, it's because they provoked it somehow, or that somehow violence is just a normal part of married life, may not understand that they shouldn't tolerate living in a situation where they are subject to physical violence. That doesn't mean the rest of us just ignore what's going on, anymore than we should ignore sexual abuse of kids, even if the kids aren't complaining.

 

Some men are indoctrinated to believe that violence is the way to handle disagreements and they fail to understand that they do not have to live that type of unloving existence.

Or is it only women and children who are not capable of understanding and thus must have society step in to protect them?

[rockon]

From my perspective there is no excuse for this behavior regardless of the gender, race, age, status, mental state, financial position, athletic ability, sexual preference, education, alcohol consumption, childhood experience or any other commonly used excuses to justify poor choices. This man should be treated as all other criminals and charged for the infraction period.

The strange thing for me is why the focus is on the NFL and their staff. If the motel had a tape of a crime being committed then should not expect that the tape be given to the proper authorities so the crime could be investigated and charges filed. It is not the NFL's job to charge anyone with a crime or even deliver punishment for the crime. The most I would expect such a corporation to do is have some ethical standards or expectations that are clearly spelled out in their contracts that would allow them to a player if and when they are found guilty of crime or if their actions cause the NFL to look bad.

The fact that people are focused on the NFL commissioner as the big bad guy or that some idiot on FOX news made some insensitive comment seems totally ridiculous to me. Wouldn't it seem much more logical to ask why the police didn't respond as they should have or why maybe why the motel took the tape to the NFL instead of just to the police. If we are looking for fall guys or a bogeyman why not ask why it is acceptable for the rap singers to use lyrics that promote this behavior and worse? Video games that promote similar violence? Hollywood movies that make it seem like normal behavior?

[Deleted]

Sept 22, 2014 15:11:38 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Sept 22, 2014 14:01:34 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

My statement had nothing to do with my experience's with domestic violence. Was he convicted of a felony ? No ? Looks like it wasn't an automatic felony because he hit a girl. I was pointing out the nonsense of that statement. There is no such thing as an "automatic felony" for hitting a girl. I could continue with how I think your statement makes me think you know little about the law, but I prefer to comment on the subject, not a posters possible experiences.  (The reason a plea deal is accepted, is because the prosecution feels they might not get a conviction)

I wasn't referrring or responding to the part where you said automatic felony.  Punching a girl is not an automatic felony you are correct.

I was responding to the part where you called it a drunken brawl & seemed to imply that he didn't do anything wrong.  "Because she lost doesn't make him a criminal"  Maybe I misunderstood (I apologize if I did), but it really seemed like you were implying this was merely self-defense & not domestic violence.  And that is what I was responding to, because if that is your view, then I am going to say you indeed don't understand domestic violence.

I wasn't implying his actions as self defense at any level, but his attorney would. They both did everything wrong as I saw in the video. I was merely describing it. If they do that to each other, they might be better off parted. He might of learned something from the experience, but I doubt it. We don't converse much. So you have no way of knowing that I don't imply or infer anything, or play for an audience. I'm kind of boring that way.

[Angel!]

Sept 22, 2014 15:27:34 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Sept 22, 2014 15:11:38 GMT -5 Angel! said:

I wasn't referrring or responding to the part where you said automatic felony.  Punching a girl is not an automatic felony you are correct.

I was responding to the part where you called it a drunken brawl & seemed to imply that he didn't do anything wrong.  "Because she lost doesn't make him a criminal"  Maybe I misunderstood (I apologize if I did), but it really seemed like you were implying this was merely self-defense & not domestic violence.  And that is what I was responding to, because if that is your view, then I am going to say you indeed don't understand domestic violence.

I wasn't implying his actions as self defense at any level, but his attorney would. They both did everything wrong as I saw in the video. I was merely describing it. If they do that to each other, they might be better off parted. He might of learned something from the experience, but I doubt it. We don't converse much. So you have no way of knowing that I don't imply or infer anything, or play for an audience. I'm kind of boring that way.

In that case I apologize. There was another thread where people were absolutely claiming that this was just self-defense & he shouldn't be charged with anything, so I thought that is what you were also saying. Of course, that is what his lawyer would claim. He would still be screwed, which is why he took the deal, but that is probably their only possible defense if you want to fight the charge.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sept 16, 2014 14:12:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 16, 2014 14:05:25 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I just go by the numbers.  When you meet someone, there's a 4 in 10 shot they already self-identify as a conservative-- the nation's largest ideological group.  There's about 2 in 10 shot they self-identify as liberal.

oh.  you meant political in the trivial sense, not in the specific sense.  got it.

yes, i am sure that the actors involved in any transaction have political feelings of one sort or another.

i thought you were making a specific claim.  my error.

Now that we've had some time for the issue to stew, as most issues do- it's political.  In the literal sense.  And there's an entire liberal movement just like there's a conservative movement, so we don't need to have an elected political official say something for it to be politicized.  We could have NOW (weighed in), or some other group and that's decidedly political.

[happyhoix]

Sept 22, 2014 15:24:01 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Sept 22, 2014 14:21:22 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

...

Society has to defend people who may not understand they are victims. Certainly some women, indoctrinated with the idea that, if violence occurs, it's because they provoked it somehow, or that somehow violence is just a normal part of married life, may not understand that they shouldn't tolerate living in a situation where they are subject to physical violence. That doesn't mean the rest of us just ignore what's going on, anymore than we should ignore sexual abuse of kids, even if the kids aren't complaining.

 

Some men are indoctrinated to believe that violence is the way to handle disagreements and they fail to understand that they do not have to live that type of unloving existence.

Or is it only women and children who are not capable of understanding and thus must have society step in to protect them?

No, you're right, most men don't suddenly decide to beat their wives for fun. Most cases, it's learned behavior, or they were the victim of child abuse themselves. . Unfortunately, I think a lot of returning vets with PSTD probably tend to respond to others with violence, due to what they experienced, and most of them aren't getting the help they need, either.  That guy who scaled the White House fence was a vet who had been living in his car for the last few years - lucky he didn't get himself shot or eaten by an attack dog. Maybe now he'll get the help he needs, and it's shitty that he had to do something like this to get it.

[Deleted]

Sept 22, 2014 15:14:07 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Sept 22, 2014 14:23:23 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Same thing in different words, I'm flexible. They wouldn't of "allowed" a plea deal if they were sure of a conviction. The "big star" reason is just conjecture on your part. Regardless, there is still no "automatic felony" for hitting a female. That was my only point of comment.

Sure they would.  Ask swamp, a plea deal is almost always offered.  It is far easier than a trial & less time consuming.  It has nothing to do with likelihood of conviction, but getting him through the system the quickest & easiest way possible.

If they were sure of a conviction it would be an easy and fast trial to get a criminal the punishment he merits by law.  Prison crowding, system backlog, etc. would be a whole different argument for me when all I was trying to do was say there is no such thing as an automatic felony.  The plea deals come fast and often these days. Unlike Happy, I feel the prosecutor would tend less to agree to one because of the high exposure of the case and all the notoriety that would come with winning it, if he felt sure of a conviction.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sept 22, 2014 9:55:39 GMT -5 Opti said:

Sept 22, 2014 9:50:46 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Clinton cheated on his wife, sexually harassed several other women, committed perjury, and was quite credibly accused of rape.  We were told it did not affect his ability to do his job, and we should just let him do his job, and besides- everyone lies about sex, so it's not 'really' perjury.  And in spite of a long record of being a womanizer, including abusing his office for the purpose, and many, many credible accusations of everything from sexual harassment and sexual assault / rape-- how this might impact others ability to work with and for him was never really a consideration in many people's minds.  Glad to see some people here have 'evolved' on this issue of a person's private conduct and character spilling over into their public job.

There is a big difference,  at least for many of us, between a womanizer

and a man who opens a can of whup ass on his wife.

I didn't take you as someone who would have advocated domestic

violence is OK if it appears she agrees with it.

I can't prove it, and neither can she, but I found Juanita Broadwick's claim that Bill Clinton raped her entirely credible.  If it was anyone else, you would have, too.  That's more than being a womanizer.  And lying under oath- perjury- is a felony.  Many sane people believe that perjury qualifies as a 'high crime' for which a President ought to be removed from office- whether or not you happen to agree with the investigations, it's aims, motives, or purposes.  You don't lie to a Grand Jury in this country without consequence.  

Unfortunately, most Democrats have Larry King syndrome on Juanita Broaddrick...

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

It's relevant because the woman that allegedly threatened Bill Clinton's alleged victim (the same woman that has a LOT to answer for re: Benghazi) wants to be our next President- supposedly.

[mmhmm]

Sept 22, 2014 15:41:25 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Sept 22, 2014 9:55:39 GMT -5 Opti said:

There is a big difference,  at least for many of us, between a womanizer

and a man who opens a can of whup ass on his wife.

I didn't take you as someone who would have advocated domestic

violence is OK if it appears she agrees with it.

I can't prove it, and neither can she, but I found Juanita Broadwick's claim that Bill Clinton raped her entirely credible.  If it was anyone else, you would have, too.  That's more than being a womanizer.  And lying under oath- perjury- is a felony.  Many sane people believe that perjury qualifies as a 'high crime' for which a President ought to be removed from office- whether or not you happen to agree with the investigations, it's aims, motives, or purposes.  You don't lie to a Grand Jury in this country without consequence.  

Unfortunately, most Democrats have Larry King syndrome on Juanita Broaddrick...

What you find credible, paul, is not a legal mandate. Furthermore, you haven't got a clue what anyone else would find credible. This whole incident is behind us. It's no longer relevant and the man involved was not convicted of a felony despite your disagreement. 

[greeniis10]

I'm with you, rockon.  If an NFL player is a domestic abuser he probably was one prior to playing in the league.  The NFL did not make him that way. 

[Tennesseer]

Sept 22, 2014 14:01:34 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Sept 22, 2014 13:37:23 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Because he used ridiculous force is what made it criminal. Self-defense means reasonable force. A knock-out punch to a girly attack is not reasonable force. 

He would get a conviction, guaranteed.  That is why he took the deal.  He has a lawyer & isn't stupid...he was going to lose if he fought it.

And your statement makes me think you know very little about domestic violence.  That is ok, most people who haven't lived it don't really understand it.

My statement had nothing to do with my experience's with domestic violence. Was he convicted of a felony ? No ? Looks like it wasn't an automatic felony because he hit a girl. I was pointing out the nonsense of that statement. There is no such thing as an "automatic felony" for hitting a girl. I could continue with how I think your statement makes me think you know little about the law, but I prefer to comment on the subject, not a posters possible experiences.  (The reason a plea deal is accepted, is because the prosecution feels they might not get a conviction)

A plea deal works the other way too. The possibility of a conviction and prison time.

[happyhoix]

If it was anyone else, you would have, too.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

I am always skeptical of anyone who swears they were not assaulted, and then swears they were - and who can't remember the date or even the year that the assult took place. Generally such a thing leaves a pretty indelible mark on your psyche - I can still remember the date and time of day when the tornado took the roof off our house, and I think getting raped would leave an even stronger mental mark.

And lying under oath- perjury- is a felony. Many sane people believe that perjury qualifies as a 'high crime' for which a President ought to be removed from office- whether or not you happen to agree with the investigations, it's aims, motives, or purposes. You don't lie to a Grand Jury in this country without consequence.

I could get excited about this if he lied about whether some country had weapons of mass destruction in order to get us involved in the most expensive war in history. 

He fudged some words to avoid admitting he banged an intern. Besides hurting his wife and kid, embarressing Monica, and revealing himself to have the sexual ethics of a tom cat, what harm, exactly, did his attempt to cover up his sexual high jinx cause?  

 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sept 22, 2014 15:51:47 GMT -5 greeniis10 said:

I'm with you, rockon.  If an NFL player is a domestic abuser he probably was one prior to playing in the league.  The NFL did not make him that way. 

Nor is the NFL responsible for him-- that's why we have the justice system, and that seems to have run its course.  It is certainly the prerogative of the NFL to do what they see fit to protect their brand.  What bothers me about this issue is the "uproar".  The selective moral outrage on the whole thing.  You've got journalists getting their heads lopped off by people who take video of it and caption it "A Message To America" in which they threaten to come here and commit mass-murder, you have a completely lawless President who won't secure the southern border because his party is desperate to import warm bodies for the purpose of mass-election fraud, a vice President- second in line to the office of the President who is a likely candidate for the dementia ward at Bethesda, and a media worried about whether the NFL commissioner should resign because one of his players knocked his fiance, now wife, unconscious and the matter was fully adjudicated.  

My reason for starting this thread is that when you have a media message that is that far out of touch with the real problems we're facing, you have a political agenda at the heart of it.  In my opinion, the left hates "jocks" in general, and especially professional sports- and the NFL tops the list because it is a full-contact sport played exclusively by MEN, and the left has a strong fringe, kook feminist spirit at its innermost ideological core.