Topix Chitown Regulars

Toj

“Where is Everyone?”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#99709 Jul 24, 2014
Mister Tonka wrote:
<quoted text>I understand that and have no problem with that. I am not questioning their right to punish him. When you break it down to the barebones, the nfl is his employer and the masses are outraged that his employer is not picking up the slack where they feel law enforcement failed. I don't feel that is an employer's responsibility.
If you get drunk and beat someone up outside a bar, but are able to avoid charges, do you think your employer has a responsibility to punish you?
Nope. I don't have a contract with them.

If I did and they could prove that I did it, then yes out of fairness to others they may punish over ethics violation.

But I'm not an ethic's lawyer. Who knows what the true answer is.
Zap Brannigan

United States

#99710 Jul 24, 2014
He was accepted into a pre-trial diversion program and the charges will be expunged if he completed the program. He violated the NFL's Personal Conduct Policy, so yes, they had an obligation to punish him.
Mister Tonka wrote:
Straw poll:
Do you feel your employer has any responsibility to punish you for your actions outside of work hours and your job facility. Not asking if they have a right to, but if you feel they have a responsibility to.
I bring this up because of the Ray Rice story. For those that don't know, he is a football player who allegedly knocked his girlfriend out, then dragged her onto an elevator. Knocking her out was not caught on camera, so I say allegedly, but he is seen on security footage carrying her limp body onto the elevator. As far as I am aware, he has not been charged with any crime(feel free to correct me if I am wrong), though it certainly seems that he deserves to be charged with one. The NFL suspended him for 2 games.
I have no problem with whatever they do with him. 1 game, 10 games, 100 games. But I've seen some outrage on twitter at such a lenient punishment. There is this pervasive sentiment that the NFL has a RESPONSIBILITY to punish him more harshly. My question to that outrage is, why is it the his employer's RESPONSIBILITY to punish him for "crimes" unrelated to his employment? In any walk of life. If you work for Walmart, does Walmart have a responsibility to police your off the clock actions drop the hammer if you do something bad?

“I Am Mine”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#99711 Jul 24, 2014
Obviously I have done a poor job of phrasing my question because you are all arguing points that I don't disagree with.

My perception of the outrage of the NFL's weak punishment is that people feel like Rice has suffered no punishment by the hand of law enforcement(and he hasn't) and SOMEBODY needs to punish him. So they expect his employer to do so. They feel his employer has a responsibility to step up where law enforcement failed. This is my perception of the situation and this is what I disagree with. I have no problem if an employer chooses to no longer employ such an individual or levy some other punishment, but I don't feel they owe it to the community at large to be the de facto judge & jury in lieu of the percieved failure of the legal system.

Dog, if you accepted a job that included drug testing and being clean as a condition of employment, then yes, you can be punished for it even if you were not smoking up on the clock. This illustrates what an employer has a RIGHT to do in order to protect their own interests, not something they are doing out of responsibility to the community. I have zero issue with this.

Toj, you agree with me that your employer would not have any responsibility to punish you...but could do so if there was some clause written into your contrct. Responsibiity vs right

Zap. Again. No argument from me over what the NFL has a right to do based on the terms of the player's contract.(However I disagree that they had an obligation to punish him. Unless the specific act committed is spelled out, the punishment or lack thereof is up to the discretion of the employer.)

Sub. I agree. Employer has a responsibility to protect their brand. But that is a responsibility they have to themselves based on self interest. My question is whether or not an employer has a responsibility to un-involved/unffected 3rd parties simply because they have the power to do what those parties want.

I agree with all of you, but its not the question I was presenting. Hopefully I have explained myslef more clearly.

“What's it to ya?”

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#99712 Jul 25, 2014
Mister Tonka wrote:
Obviously I have done a poor job of phrasing my question because you are all arguing points that I don't disagree with.
My perception of the outrage of the NFL's weak punishment is that people feel like Rice has suffered no punishment by the hand of law enforcement(and he hasn't) and SOMEBODY needs to punish him. So they expect his employer to do so. They feel his employer has a responsibility to step up where law enforcement failed. This is my perception of the situation and this is what I disagree with. I have no problem if an employer chooses to no longer employ such an individual or levy some other punishment, but I don't feel they owe it to the community at large to be the de facto judge & jury in lieu of the percieved failure of the legal system.
Dog, if you accepted a job that included drug testing and being clean as a condition of employment, then yes, you can be punished for it even if you were not smoking up on the clock. This illustrates what an employer has a RIGHT to do in order to protect their own interests, not something they are doing out of responsibility to the community. I have zero issue with this.
Toj, you agree with me that your employer would not have any responsibility to punish you...but could do so if there was some clause written into your contrct. Responsibiity vs right
Zap. Again. No argument from me over what the NFL has a right to do based on the terms of the player's contract.(However I disagree that they had an obligation to punish him. Unless the specific act committed is spelled out, the punishment or lack thereof is up to the discretion of the employer.)
Sub. I agree. Employer has a responsibility to protect their brand. But that is a responsibility they have to themselves based on self interest. My question is whether or not an employer has a responsibility to un-involved/unffected 3rd parties simply because they have the power to do what those parties want.
I agree with all of you, but its not the question I was presenting. Hopefully I have explained myslef more clearly.
Short answer: No.

Longer answer: I am the employer. What you do on my time is my business and responsibility. You do something off the clock on your own time that is sketchy/illegal/whatever, that's what we have police for. The police don't do an adequate job? Still not my responsibility just the roll of the dice of whether or not individual "x" is punished "properly" under the laws as they exist/in the opinion of the public.

In the example you cite, he "allegedly" did something. They have no proof ergo punishing him outside of the justice system creeps over into the area of vigilantism. If we're going to operate that way, pound of flesh because of public opinion rather than evidence, why even have a justice system at all? Even with proof, punishment outside of the legal system is unnecessary.

Getting into stuff like contracts with ethics clauses and stuff is another thing though. Ultimately though without evidence, even if we say the NFL should punish him based on contract agreements, punishment without proof seems a little gratuitous.

“I Am Mine”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#99713 Jul 25, 2014
Mimi Seattle wrote:
<quoted text>
Short answer: No.
Longer answer: I am the employer. What you do on my time is my business and responsibility. You do something off the clock on your own time that is sketchy/illegal/whatever, that's what we have police for. The police don't do an adequate job? Still not my responsibility just the roll of the dice of whether or not individual "x" is punished "properly" under the laws as they exist/in the opinion of the public.
In the example you cite, he "allegedly" did something. They have no proof ergo punishing him outside of the justice system creeps over into the area of vigilantism. If we're going to operate that way, pound of flesh because of public opinion rather than evidence, why even have a justice system at all? Even with proof, punishment outside of the legal system is unnecessary.
Getting into stuff like contracts with ethics clauses and stuff is another thing though. Ultimately though without evidence, even if we say the NFL should punish him based on contract agreements, punishment without proof seems a little gratuitous.
You and I agree. Further info Zap brought to the table, he WAS arrested, but got pretrial diversion. Basically a slap on the wrist from the courts, so people want their pound of flesh from the NFL.

Toj

“Where is Everyone?”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#99714 Jul 25, 2014
Mister Tonka wrote:
<quoted text>You and I agree. Further info Zap brought to the table, he WAS arrested, but got pretrial diversion. Basically a slap on the wrist from the courts, so people want their pound of flesh from the NFL.
There are always "people" who are unsatisfied with the outcome of almost anything. Sometimes I believe they have a valid point, other times I believe they are looking for their 15 minutes of fame or looking for a cause because they are bored.

In the case of the NFL, it's probably because they are tired of athletes getting away with crap.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#99715 Jul 25, 2014
Mister Tonka wrote:
Sub. I agree. Employer has a responsibility to protect their brand. But that is a responsibility they have to themselves based on self interest. My question is whether or not an employer has a responsibility to un-involved/unffected 3rd parties simply because they have the power to do what those parties want.
I don't think it's done primarily because they feel a responsibility to un-involved third parties. I think they want to discourage that sort of behavior by those who they are associated with because it doesn't reflect well on the league/brand. It not only sends a message to the player who is punished, but also everyone else in the league. While what doesn't reflect well on the league/brand is determined by public opinion, it's really about image, not feeling responsible. That's what I think, anyway.

“Where is Tonka?”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me! Charlie

#99716 Jul 25, 2014
Tonka,
I understood what you meant the first time. This is the same argument you used when I said the NFL should not let Vic play again.
Basically I was arguing to get the NFL to get my pound of flesh from him.

So it really comes down to WHEN should the NFL bring any judgement or punishment on a player for their off field antics?

Is a wife beater really a image problem for the NFL? And if the accusations are false or do not lead to any criminal charges, does the NFL have any right to met out their own punishment on the player? How can they punish someone for being falsely accused?

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#99717 Jul 25, 2014
RACE wrote:
How can they punish someone for being falsely accused?
Because they aren't subject to the same standard as the criminal justice system, which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Absent some state law or union contract clause that prevents them from doing so, they can pretty make up their own rules.

It's the same in many contexts. If you are a judge, for example, you can get in trouble for an ethics violation with even the appearance of an impropriety. It doesn't matter if you actually engaged in an impropriety. If a reasonable person might question whether you engaged in an impropriety when presented with the facts of the situation, even though there was no definitive proof one way or the other, you can get in trouble, even if you didn't do anything wrong. The thought being is that as a judge, you shouldn't even put yourself in a situation where your impartiality and integrity could be questioned.

“...,to wit”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#99718 Jul 25, 2014

“Where is Tonka?”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me! Charlie

#99719 Jul 25, 2014
What about all those judges being charged with DWI, after leaving a strip club with Meth on their breath? Nothing seems to happen to them.
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are a judge, for example, you can get in trouble for an ethics violation with even the appearance of an impropriety. It doesn't matter if you actually engaged in an impropriety. If a reasonable person might question whether you engaged in an impropriety when presented with the facts of the situation, even though there was no definitive proof one way or the other, you can get in trouble, even if you didn't do anything wrong. The thought being is that as a judge, you shouldn't even put yourself in a situation where your impartiality and integrity could be questioned.
concerned citizen

Buffalo, NY

#99720 Jul 25, 2014
I'd like to know, for example, how can a drunkazz Speaker Of The House sue a sitting president? That's insane. I thought you couldn't sue a sitting president, the idea being to thwart idiots who would frivolously sue a president for their own self-aggrandizement. I can appreciate that the downside is the further decimation of the once-proud GOP but there ought to be sanctions against the perpetraitor (sic) who would waste TAXPAYER money with such BS. There ought to be a law!

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#99721 Jul 25, 2014
RACE wrote:
What about all those judges being charged with DWI, after leaving a strip club with Meth on their breath? Nothing seems to happen to them.
<quoted text>
I'm sure things happen to them:

http://work.chron.com/judges-lose-jobs-18758....

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

#99722 Jul 25, 2014
concerned citizen wrote:
I'd like to know, for example, how can a drunkazz Speaker Of The House sue a sitting president? That's insane. I thought you couldn't sue a sitting president
Paula Jones sued president Clinton

The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth District ruled that: "The President, like all other government officials, is subject to the same laws that apply to all other members of our society."

The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that decision

“Where is Tonka?”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me! Charlie

#99723 Jul 25, 2014
I just googled Judge Fired. out of 37,500,000 results, there were 2 that said a particular judge was fired. Of course I id not go thru all results...
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure things happen to them:
http://work.chron.com/judges-lose-jobs-18758....

Toj

“Where is Everyone?”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#99724 Jul 25, 2014
Many judges get sanctioned for their actions. I'd put some examples here but I believe everyonme has the capability of googling "sanctioned judges".
concerned citizen

Buffalo, NY

#99725 Jul 25, 2014
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Paula Jones sued president Clinton
The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth District ruled that: "The President, like all other government officials, is subject to the same laws that apply to all other members of our society."
The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that decision
That's just dumb! If there ever is a republican president again, maybe democrats will weasel out and sue one! I doubt it though as it's kinda an unAmerican thing to do.

Imagine a plantation owner of the south suing Lincoln for freeing his slaves! Or a mom who lost a son in Iraq suing Bush for her soldier son's death under the false pretenses of Iraq being responsible for 9/11 (or the back-up excuse of WMD's)

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#99726 Jul 25, 2014
RACE wrote:
I just googled Judge Fired. out of 37,500,000 results, there were 2 that said a particular judge was fired. Of course I id not go thru all results...
<quoted text>
Firings are rare. Unless it is something really bad, they will probably give you at least a second chance. There are other consequences in addition to firing.

"Judicial conduct commissions can impose a range of penalties including legal orders to cease and desist a particular course of action, formal warnings, temporary suspensions, forced retirement from the bench and removal from office. Judges are warned or sanctioned by the judicial conduct commission more often than they are removed from office or forced into retirement."

In a professional setting, such as that of a judge, even a slap on the wrist involving a formal warning and temporary suspension is also probably more embarrassing and painful than in a sports setting too. In the NFL your peers probably look at you as "keeping it real," lol. In a legal setting, especially if you are on the bench, it would be pretty damn embarrassing. You don't want to have that sort of reputation amongst your peers.
LMS

Elizabethtown, KY

#99727 Jul 25, 2014
Mister Tonka wrote:
Obviously I have done a poor job of phrasing my question because you are all arguing points that I don't disagree with.
My perception of the outrage of the NFL's weak punishment is that people feel like Rice has suffered no punishment by the hand of law enforcement(and he hasn't) and SOMEBODY needs to punish him. So they expect his employer to do so. They feel his employer has a responsibility to step up where law enforcement failed. This is my perception of the situation and this is what I disagree with. I have no problem if an employer chooses to no longer employ such an individual or levy some other punishment, but I don't feel they owe it to the community at large to be the de facto judge & jury in lieu of the percieved failure of the legal system.
Dog, if you accepted a job that included drug testing and being clean as a condition of employment, then yes, you can be punished for it even if you were not smoking up on the clock. This illustrates what an employer has a RIGHT to do in order to protect their own interests, not something they are doing out of responsibility to the community. I have zero issue with this.
Toj, you agree with me that your employer would not have any responsibility to punish you...but could do so if there was some clause written into your contrct. Responsibiity vs right
Zap. Again. No argument from me over what the NFL has a right to do based on the terms of the player's contract.(However I disagree that they had an obligation to punish him. Unless the specific act committed is spelled out, the punishment or lack thereof is up to the discretion of the employer.)
Sub. I agree. Employer has a responsibility to protect their brand. But that is a responsibility they have to themselves based on self interest. My question is whether or not an employer has a responsibility to un-involved/unffected 3rd parties simply because they have the power to do what those parties want.
I agree with all of you, but its not the question I was presenting. Hopefully I have explained myslef more clearly.
Spoken like the true CRACK HEAD Dumb A$$ That you are!!! Got a problem with that? Suck * ME BOY!!! Come visit me and tell me all about it. My friend KARMA says DITO that!! Stupid* A$$!!!
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/campbellsvill...

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

#99728 Jul 26, 2014

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 14 min Dr Guru 230,912
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 45 min Cheech the Conser... 1,457,546
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr Basil Fomeen 62,297
last post wins! (Dec '10) 3 hr honeymylove 2,740
Johnny Murray a/k/a Johnny's Marine 3 hr Elder James Johnson 34
last post wins! (Apr '13) 4 hr They cannot kill ... 1,953
Why does Chicago want to harbor illegal criminals 5 hr YIM 9

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages