The NFL still doesn't get it

[Olympic Fan]

In the wake of the Ray Rice embarrassment, you'd think the NFL would be a little more sensitive to the issues of domestic violence.

But, no ... it's the same blind eye, so far.

Case in point, Charlotte DE Greg Hardy who has been convicted of attacking his ex girlfriend -- found guilty by a judge.

But Hardy is appealing the conviction and both the Panthers and the NFL have decided that until the legal appeal plays out, Hardy can continue to practice and play for the Panthers (he played last week and is scheduled to play next week). I heard Charlotte radio guy Mick Mixon on local radio today defending that decision -- after all, the judge "only" found Hardy guilty of two counts of misdemeanor assault. And according, the Mixon, it was Hardy who called 911 to report the incident.

Indeed, that sounds good -- there is a 911 call with Hardy calling and claiming that a crazy woman is attacking him.

What he didn't say is that there are two other 911 calls from independent observers -- and they tell quite a different story:

http://cbssports.com/images/blogs/GregHardy911Call3.mp3

"Domestic violence. Some girl's getting her a-- beat upstairs. And I heard it. And I seen it. He is beating her a-- right the f— now. So get here now. I was in the apartment. He's beating her a--.."

Then there was this one:

http://cbssports.com/images/blogs/GregHardy911Call4.mp3

He promised me my name wouldn't be involved. Because I'm seriously afraid of my neighbor. He's a huge guy. He's 6'4” and 290 pounds. There were like eight guys right here outside my door. I was kind of afraid to say anything."

I repeat, Hardy was CONVICTED of domestic abuse, yet despite Goodell's lofty words about taking domestic abuse seriously, Hardy is still playing while his appeal plays out.

It's funny, because earlier this week, Panthers owner Jerry Richardson received a humanitarianism award and broke down and cried when talking about how seriously he takes domestic violence. But he's fine with Hardy playing after his conviction, during his appeal.

The same thing is going on in San Francisco, where the team announced a "zero tolerance" for domestic abuse.

"They is no gray area" head coach Jim Harbaugh said. "It's a quick ticket off the team."

Except tackle Ray McDonald, who was arrested for assaulting his pregnant wife, is still in the lineup. Why? Due process. My favorite explanation comes fro0m one of his teammates, who said this is nothing like the Ray Rice case:

"This is completely different," 49ers guard Alex Boone told USA TODAY Sports, comparing McDonald to Rice. "There's no video of Ray (McDonald) hitting a woman.

No video -- so that's the new standard of NFL proof ... if it's not on video, it's not a concern.

Police say that when they took McDonald into custody, the girl was visibly covered in bruises.

In an interesting sidelight, while the 49ers are closing ranks around McDonald, they suspended broadcaster Ted Robinson two games for "insensitive remarks." I guess Mick Mison better be careful what he says or he may end up taking the heat for Hardy's actions.

Goodell has said that he won't impose any discipline outlined in the new domestic violence policy — six games for a first offense, a lifetime ban for a second — on Hardy or McDonald until their cases are resolved.

As former 49er star Steve Young said Monday night, that's ridiculous:

“Fundamentally, if the league is going to have a no-tolerance policy for domestic abuse…we’ve got to back it up,” he said on ESPN’s Monday Night Countdown. “Ray McDonald gets arrested and has physical bruising with his wife and felony domestic abuse, violence. Any company in this country, any big company, if that happens, they send you home. They might pay you, but you don’t play, you don’t come to work until we figure this out.”

[tommy]

And now, with an even bigger star, Adrian Peterson, being indicted for child abuse for beating his son with a branch, we'll see how serious the NFL is in addressing THAT type of assault against a family member. A crime that some consider to be even more serious than slugging one's wife or girlfriend, who at least are adults. NOT that that minimizes the unacceptability of assaulting one's wife or girlfriend. At all.

[YmoBeThere]

I've not been involved with any situations, but I'm certain I don't agree fully with Mr. Young's assertion.

[Wander]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/nfl...ideotap,36885/

[bjornolf]

And now, with an even bigger star, Adrian Peterson, being indicted for child abuse for beating his son with a branch, we'll see how serious the NFL is in addressing THAT type of assault against a family member. A crime that some consider to be even more serious than slugging one's wife or girlfriend, who at least are adults. NOT that that minimizes the unacceptability of assaulting one's wife or girlfriend. At all.

To be fair, I believe it was a switch, not a branch. Any good Southern boy knows the difference. That in no way excuses the act though.

Here's an article about it:
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-...o-harm-his-son

[-jk]

I'm just a bit perplexed. Do we go with whatever the press or TMZ publishes? Actual indictments? Or conviction by a jury of peers (or at least regular folk)? I'm a bit uncomfortable with leaving the livelihoods of people in the hands of the fourth estate (with apologies to our so esteemed members) - we've seen, first hand, the witch hunts they can launch unchecked. Having sound checks in place makes a huge difference, even if it means we have to be patient - or disappointed.

So where should the line be drawn between a loose accusation and an adjudicated conviction? Does the Potter Stewart rule apply (and if so, who gets to decide)?

-jk

[bjornolf]

I'm just a bit perplexed. Do we go with whatever the press or TMZ publishes? Actual indictments? Or conviction by a jury of peers (or at least regular folk)? I'm a bit uncomfortable with leaving the livelihoods of people in the hands of the fourth estate (with apologies to our so esteemed members) - we've seen, first hand, the witch hunts they can launch unchecked. Having sound checks in place makes a huge difference, even if it means we have to be patient - or disappointed.

So where should the line be drawn between a loose accusation and an adjudicated conviction? Does the Potter Stewart rule apply (and if so, who gets to decide)?

-jk

Sorry, I'm so out of the loop. Is he the "I know it when I see it" guy? Is that what you're referring to?

[tommy]

I'm just a bit perplexed. Do we go with whatever the press or TMZ publishes? Actual indictments? Or conviction by a jury of peers (or at least regular folk)? I'm a bit uncomfortable with leaving the livelihoods of people in the hands of the fourth estate (with apologies to our so esteemed members) - we've seen, first hand, the witch hunts they can launch unchecked. Having sound checks in place makes a huge difference, even if it means we have to be patient - or disappointed.

So where should the line be drawn between a loose accusation and an adjudicated conviction? Does the Potter Stewart rule apply (and if so, who gets to decide)?

-jk

Tough issue. One problem is that the legal processes in each state are different. In some, the prosecutor can just file a case and there aren't any other steps before the defendant is arraigned, there are pre-trial motions and then the case is either settled (plea bargained) or else it goes to trial. In other states, there are preliminary hearings, where a judge has to hear the evidence and decide that it is substantial enough to justify moving the case forward towards trial. In other states, grand juries essentially do the same thing, determining that sufficient evidence exists to indict and move the case forward to trial. And there are many other ways that other states do it.

If they all had either preliminary hearings or grand jury indictments, I would say that either of those would suffice for the league to take action against a player, because then it isn't just the victim making a report and the prosecution believing her (and/or marshaling other evidence in support of the charge) and filing the case, leading to the player being suspended.. There would be action by an impartial body -- the judge or the grand jury -- looking at the evidence and declaring that it is substantial. But like I say, not all states have those processes. I'd be a little concerned to have suspensions based on just the prosecutor filing a case, or worse, simply an arrest. It's just too easy for one party to call the police, have the other party arrested, with the surrounding circumstances, including any mitigating facts, not being considered.

On the other hand, I also don't think that a case should have to be proven to the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" for the NFL or any other league to take action. It's a business, not a courtroom, and they should have the right to discipline employees without a case being proven to that level.

The realities of domestic violence cases make this problem even more vexing. In real life, there are many, many cases of domestic violence, including those with supporting evidence like photos, 911 calls, medical records, and the like, that either never get filed at all, or even if they do get filed, they end up getting dismissed because the victim won't come in and testify against her abuser. There are many reasons for this, including psychological and financial reasons -- and threats against the victim if she does come to court -- but any experienced prosecutor knows this to be true. The result is that many, many abusers never face justice at all. Were actual convictions to be required for the sports league in question to act, these abusers would never face any consequences from the league either.

I suppose the NFL could set up some kind of quasi-judicial body to handle their players who are arrested, and have that body determine the strength of the evidence of guilt in the case, and if it's deemed strong enough, then the league can take punitive action against the player. There would be a lot of challenges in setting something like that up, including dealing with the union, and the fact that the defendant/player would likely be advised not to "testify" in such a hearing for fear it could be used against him in the real courtroom case to come. That could significantly impair his ability to defend himself in the league hearing.

No easy answers here, I'm afraid. I do know that domestic violence is an epidemic in this country, and has long been poo-poo'd within the "circle the wagons" culture of football, and I also know that the NFL is not going to be motivated to take a strong stand against it unless they deem it in their financial interest to do so. Sad, but true.

[budwom]

The NFL has NEVER cared about this issue in the past. The ONLY concern among teams has been how soon do we get our guy back on the field?

The ONLY reason they care now is because other people are insisting that they care. All this blather from the owners and Goodell about how they won't
stand for domestic violence is remarkably disingenuous.

[Olympic Fan]

I'm just a bit perplexed. Do we go with whatever the press or TMZ publishes? Actual indictments? Or conviction by a jury of peers (or at least regular folk)? I'm a bit uncomfortable with leaving the livelihoods of people in the hands of the fourth estate (with apologies to our so esteemed members) - we've seen, first hand, the witch hunts they can launch unchecked. Having sound checks in place makes a huge difference, even if it means we have to be patient - or disappointed.

So where should the line be drawn between a loose accusation and an adjudicated conviction? Does the Potter Stewart rule apply (and if so, who gets to decide)?

-jk

(1) Greg Hardy was CONVICTED in a court of law.

(2) Ray McDonalds was arrested by the police.

I don't think TMZ or the Fourth Estate was involved in either case -- except to prevent the NFL from hiding it as I'm sure they would have preferred to do.

And for all the so-called regard for "due process", Adrian Peterson was suspended by the Vikings within hours of being charged of child abuse. Just an odd bit of inconsistency.

I agree with Budworm, the NFL has never cared about domestic abuse -- and still doesn't.

[Highlander]

(1) Greg Hardy was CONVICTED in a court of law.

(2) Ray McDonalds was arrested by the police.

I don't think TMZ or the Fourth Estate was involved in either case -- except to prevent the NFL from hiding it as I'm sure they would have preferred to do.

And for all the so-called regard for "due process", Adrian Peterson was suspended by the Vikings within hours of being charged of child abuse. Just an odd bit of inconsistency.

I agree with Budworm, the NFL has never cared about domestic abuse -- and still doesn't.

Greg Hardy was "convicted" in a non-binding bench trial by a single judge with no jury. Both sides, if they disagreed with the outcome of the judge's decision, had the right to appeal and the case would go in front of an actual jury. So his conviction is meaningless in the eyes of the law. It was thrown out and he starts from scratch as innocent until proven guilty. Interestingly enough, because he appealed he is now subject to the new, mandatory 6 game suspension rules, where previously it would have been a couple of game.

As for the Panthers, they franchised Hardy this year at a price tag of $13 million, and they know they cannot afford to sign him for next season. Since his salary is guaranteed, he walks away with $13M if they release him.

It's easy for us to say "Let's throw the book at the guy," but the truth is that he hasn't been convicted in the eyes of the law, and is innocent until proven guilty. Since he walks at the end of the season regardless of what they do, and if they cut him they're out $13M, I can see why they are biding their time to let the legal process play out, hopefully after the season when he's someone else's problem.

[bjornolf]

And for all the so-called regard for "due process", Adrian Peterson was suspended by the Vikings within hours of being charged of child abuse. Just an odd bit of inconsistency.

Deactivated is not the same as suspended. When a player is arrested in Texas two days before a game in Minnesota, that's not overly shocking.

[davekay1971]

To be fair, I believe it was a switch, not a branch. Any good Southern boy knows the difference. That in no way excuses the act though.

Here's an article about it:
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-...o-harm-his-son

I'm not sure what there is to excuse about the act. Maybe my old school is showing, but a dad getting arrested for giving his son a good old fashioned whupping with a switch is ridiculous. Kids in this country are being raised to be disrespectful, spoiled, and ill-mannered, and the currently vogue parenting philosophy of redirecting, never saying no, counting to three, giving a time out, and never, ever whipping a butt, is why. I hear kids all the time yelling at their parents, pitching fits for not getting everything they want. I see kids hitting and punching their parents. And that's why they grow up to be spoiled and disrespectful. Most of these kids, in the long run, would be better off is their parents occasionally popped their butts. Although I personally feel a spanking is enough to get the lesson across, I'm not going to call Adrian Peterson, or my own grandparents, child abusers because they see fit to teach the lesson more sharply. Kids will recover from a bruised butt. They don't recover from never learning respect (and yes, even a little healthy fear) for authority.

[Blue in the Face]

Well now we've got it going on.

[tbyers11]

I'm not sure what there is to excuse about the act. Maybe my old school is showing, but a dad getting arrested for giving his son a good old fashioned whupping with a switch is ridiculous. Kids in this country are being raised to be disrespectful, spoiled, and ill-mannered, and the currently vogue parenting philosophy of redirecting, never saying no, counting to three, giving a time out, and never, ever whipping a butt, is why. I hear kids all the time yelling at their parents, pitching fits for not getting everything they want. I see kids hitting and punching their parents. And that's why they grow up to be spoiled and disrespectful. Most of these kids, in the long run, would be better off is their parents occasionally popped their butts. Although I personally feel a spanking is enough to get the lesson across, I'm not going to call Adrian Peterson, or my own grandparents, child abusers because they see fit to teach the lesson more sharply. Kids will recover from a bruised butt. They don't recover from never learning respect (and yes, even a little healthy fear) for authority.

I had roughly the same response that you did when I first heard about the story. "He spanked his kids a few times with a switch, big deal". Then I saw the pictures. WARNING: They're a little rough

Those pictures show quite a bit more than a "bruised butt". The pictures were also taken several days after the "whooping" when the kid returned to his mother in Minnesota and show extensive lacerations and bruising on the buttocks, thighs, back and scrotum, and hand. What did they look like the day after? The child was also only 4 years old. WAY too young for anything besides a few smack on the butt.

[Udaman]

Moderators - can you please lock this thread? Otherwise I'm going to have to go postal on the poster who claims that a large grown man hitting a 4 year old with a switch until the skin splits open (dozens of times, by the way), is not only a good thing, but that the problem with kids today is that more of them aren't routinely beaten by their parents in the same manner.

[bjornolf]

I have to agree with the others. My first thought was that the reaction seemed like overkill for the actions of AP, but, like with the Ray Rice situation, after seeing the images, my mind was changed. I have to say it goes way beyond a correction and well into abuse. That wasn't a spanking or a switching as we used to call it. That was a beating. I wouldn't agree with that at any age, but to a four year old, it's simply way over the line.

[Blue in the Face]

Moderators - can you please lock this thread? Otherwise I'm going to have to go postal on the poster who claims that a large grown man hitting a 4 year old with a switch until the skin splits open (dozens of times, by the way), is not only a good thing, but that the problem with kids today is that more of them aren't routinely beaten by their parents in the same manner.

Whatever you do, just stay off his lawn.

[bjornolf]

Moderators - can you please lock this thread? Otherwise I'm going to have to go postal on the poster who claims that a large grown man hitting a 4 year old with a switch until the skin splits open (dozens of times, by the way), is not only a good thing, but that the problem with kids today is that more of them aren't routinely beaten by their parents in the same manner.

To be fair, I didn't see anywhere that said dozens of times, nor do the photos shown indicate that. Most of the wounds I saw were a straight line across both thighs, indicating one strike across both. Again, I'm not condoning the behavior, just trying to be accurate. If you saw somewhere that said that, please point it out to me. Thanks.

[moonpie23]

first: the nfl is bullet proof…


second: which games will everyone "not watch" in protest of all the sunburn the league is suffering from recently?



my dad cut the blood from the back of my legs with a belt from age 8 on…..before that, it was swats with his hand……HARD swats….

I turned out alright…..



that's why i'm breaking the cycle of violence and will never strike my children….