Chris McCain Charged with Misdemeanor Battery

[Nadine]

20 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

@Nadine

  when I brought up the RF incident it wasn’t to bring up liars but to stress the need to wait until all the cards are played

    

    

 

Gotcha, I think most people were taking a wait and see attitude

[DougDew]

Well its nice to see the Colts felt the need to issue a press release about taking this situation seriously and are gathering all info available.  It sounds like they might be prepared to look at the situation through their own expert lenses instead of waiting for the legal system to do that. 

 

So I'm wondering how they would handle a hypothetical situation:

 

He grabbed her by the neck, but not so badly that it caused harm.  OTOH, maybe he touched her forearm with a pointed index finger and cut her with a sharp fingernail, which actually caused harm.

 

Hmmm, what a dilemma Ballard and Irsay have chosen to analyze.  Is grabbing someone by the neck in a way that did no harm a worse offense then pointing a week old fingernail and cutting somebody with it?  Afterall, grabbing by the neck seems serious, but then there is no harm, and pointing a fingernail at someone isn't a serious thing, but yet it resulted in a cut.

 

My my, what an unusual job is must be to be an NFL GM and Owner these days.  I'm glad I don't have to ask and answer such important questions in my job. 

[dgambill]

8 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Well its nice to see the Colts felt the need to issue a press release about taking this situation seriously and are gathering all info available.  It sounds like they might be prepared to look at the situation through there own expert lenses instead of waiting for the legal system to do that. 

 

So I'm wondering how they would handle a hypothetical situation:

 

He grabbed her by the neck, but not so badly that it caused harm.  OTOH, maybe he touched her forearm with a pointed index finger and cut her with a sharp fingernail, which actually caused harm.

 

Hmmm, what a dilemma Ballard and Irsay have chosen to analyze.  Is grabbing someone by the neck in a way that did no harm a worse offense then pointing a week old fingernail and cutting somebody with it?  Afterall, grabbing by the neck seems serious, but then there is no harm, and pointing a fingernail at someone isn't a serious thing, but yet it resulted in a cut.

 

My my, what an unusual job is must be to be an NFL GM and Owner these days.  I'm glad I don't have to ask and answer such important questions in my job. 

I’m reserving judgement until the facts are all out there but if he grabbed her by the neck and spit on her even if it didn’t cause physical harm that is not what I would want representing my team and city. I could see them letting him go if they find it to be true even if no physical harm came. It’s hard to champion the causes the NFL dies and have employees that go against it. Again...only if the evidence supports her story.

[DougDew]

7 minutes ago, dgambill said:

I’m reserving judgement until the facts are all out there but if he grabbed her by the neck and spit on her even if it didn’t cause physical harm that is not what I would want representing my team and city. I could see them letting him go if they find it to be true even if no physical harm came. It’s hard to champion the causes the NFL dies and have employees that go against it. Again...only if the evidence supports her story.

Of course, if he did that on his personal time, do his actions actually represent the team and city when he suits up, compared to someone who does upsetting things on company time and wears the uniform while doing it?

 

All terribly important issues for a GM and owner to sort out for sure.  I'm sure they'll use straight away logic applied fairly to each situation, not just come up with whatever feels good then justify it later.  That would be disappointing if a GM and owner represented the city using that approach towards their employees.

[dgambill]

12 hours ago, DaveA1102 said:

 

 

Linked to your comments @Nadine, the issue with things like the outcome of Reuben Foster's case is that it immediately devalues women who do come out and state that they have been abused or, even worse, make them think that they should not even come forward due to the vilification they may receive.

 

Where found to be lying, there should be consequences for those women as, not only is it a horrible thing to do, that stain will linger on a player forever, whether false or not, as well as the knock-on consequences for women who have actually been abused coming forward.

It’s happened. This girl got a year in prison. https://www.google.com/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5809523/amp/Student-pleads-guilty-making-rape-allegations-against-two-college-football-players.html

I hate that we immediately jump to conclusions whether it’s guilty not guilty or take a quote out of context and call someone racist or sexist and so on. For sure some women have hurt the cause of others for a quick dollar or their own gain...hate that because we do know for a fact too many women have suffered unfairly and we have work to do as a society to respect our women, elders, minorities, and unborn. Hopefully the truth comes out and any wrong doing on either side is held responsible. There are no winners in these situations.

[DougDew]

7 minutes ago, dgambill said:

It’s happened. This girl got a year in prison. https://www.google.com/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5809523/amp/Student-pleads-guilty-making-rape-allegations-against-two-college-football-players.html

I hate that we immediately jump to conclusions whether it’s guilty not guilty or take a quote out of context and call someone racist or sexist and so on. For sure some women have hurt the cause of others for a quick dollar or their own gain...hate that because we do know for a fact too many women have suffered unfairly and we have work to do as a society to respect our women, elders, minorities, and unborn. Hopefully the truth comes out and any wrong doing on either side is held responsible. There are no winners in these situations.

Not everybody?  

[dgambill]

6 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Of course, if he did that on his personal time, do his actions actually represent the team and city when he suits up, compared to someone who does upsetting things on company time and wears the uniform while doing it?

 

All terribly important issues for a GM and owner to sort out for sure.  I'm sure they'll use straight away logic applied fairly to each situation, not just come up with whatever feels good then justify it later.  That would be disappointing if a GM and owner represented the city using that approach towards their employees.

NFL is a business based on its people and employees and their conduct and actions on and off the field basically repetesent the league. It’s why almost all contracts have moral clauses. Fair or not it’s just how it is. It isn’t a business that produces a product or service etc. it’s employees are it’s face...it’s business. So yes to what point does that harm the image of the team etc and when do you give second chances etc will be up to the owner. My personal opinion doesn’t matter even though if I found it true I would move on from the player. I would value being able to market to the mothers and women in my community and field a team that they would be proud of and could support...all 53.

[dgambill]

Just now, DougDew said:

Not everybody?  

Yes we need to respect everyone...but there is clearly an area that needs more improvement than others. We have a much bigger gap with some groups then we see with others. Simply due to some very long running social norms etc that we need to combat. Please I’m just remarking there are some groups across America that have been treated very poorly for a long time. I could mention our veterans too and so many more. We have a lot of social issues in relations to respecting our fellow citizens. I was just pointing out a few groups that have long been marginalized to a greater extent.

[DougDew]

16 minutes ago, dgambill said:

NFL is a business based on its people and employees and their conduct and actions on and off the field basically repetesent the league. It’s why almost all contracts have moral clauses. Fair or not it’s just how it is. It isn’t a business that produces a product or service etc. it’s employees are it’s face...it’s business. So yes to what point does that harm the image of the team etc and when do you give second chances etc will be up to the owner. My personal opinion doesn’t matter even though if I found it true I would move on from the player. I would value being able to market to the mothers and women in my community and field a team that they would be proud of and could support...all 53.

But these entire discussions are fraught with moral judgments.  People cant just hide behind the fact that its worked into the contract, then bring up morality in some other issue.

 

I think the PGA has a more clear and logical distinction between what actions represent their profession and what actions are purely personal.  

 

I think if John Daly got into a drunken domestic dispute with one of his three or four wives and caused her harm, I'm not sure they have it written that he gets suspended from the tour.  OTOH, I think they have a policy about visibly smoking cigarettes while playing.  (he's supposed to hide it).  Also PEDs.

 

Moral issues aside, one action is clearly on personal time and the other is on company time.  It takes some sort of linkage...like maybe media harassment....to claim that what he did in a drunken fit in the offseason extends to representing the profession.

 

When a company claims that every action an employee take represents the company, it runs the risk of becoming a tyranny on personal behavior.  Personally, I think congress should make it illegal for employers to have personal conduct policies.  People should be able to live their lives without fear that it offends the boss's sense of morals.

 

 

12 minutes ago, dgambill said:

Yes we need to respect everyone...but there is clearly an area that needs more improvement than others. We have a much bigger gap with some groups then we see with others. Simply due to some very long running social norms etc that we need to combat. Please I’m just remarking there are some groups across America that have been treated very poorly for a long time. I could mention our veterans too and so many more. We have a lot of social issues in relations to respecting our fellow citizens. I was just pointing out a few groups that have long been marginalized to a greater extent.

I was just messing with you. 

[dgambill]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

But these entire discussions are fraught with moral judgments.  People cant just hide behind the fact that its worked into the contract, then bring up morality in some other issue.

 

I think the PGA has a more clear and logical distinction between what is actions that represent their profession an what are actions are purely personal.  And they actually have a women's branch of the sport LPGA.

 

I think if John Daly got into a drunken domestic dispute with one of his three or four wives and caused her harm, I'm not sure they have it written that he gets suspended from the tour.  OTOH, I think they have a policy about visibly smoking cigarettes while playing.  (he's supposed to hide it).  

 

Moral issues aside, one action is clearly on personal time and the other is on company time.  It takes some sort of linkage...like maybe media harassment....to claim that what he did in a drunken fit in the offseason extends to representing the profession.

 

When a company claims that every action an employee does represents the company, it runs the risk of becoming a tyranny on personal behavior.  Personally, I think congress should make it illegal for employers to have personal conduct policies.  People should be able to live their lives without fear that it offends the boss's sense of morals.

 

 

I was just messing with you. 

No worries it’s hard to be sure on here sometimes lol.

 

As a business owner I want to be able to control the narrative and image of my business. It’s a privilege to play in the NFL. You sign a contract and agree to terms of employment. I sign a social media agreement with my employer so if I go out and say a bunch of hateful horrible speech and I also have that I work at company xyz it’s going to bring the company unwanted attention and may harm the company. Even more so if I’m a public figure like working for a media company like ESPN or employed for a sports franchise. If I worked for xyz construction company I suspect it would be harder to prove I’m hurting the companies image but it still is possible. So I can see why a company would want to control who they hire and retain employment if their personal actions harm the business. It’s just the world we live in now...with social media and how small and public our lives are. I understand what your saying and I want to protect peoples privacy but there is a fine line to protecting me and my business survival and my employees right to keep his job. Tough one Doug but put yourself in the position of the owner of a business. You work your whole life and sink all your money and sacrifice your family to build something and a dumb employee could ruin it all and you can’t fire them? Protections need to be on both sides...hopefully we don’t lose that and organizations consider everything carefully.

[DougDew]

16 minutes ago, dgambill said:

No worries it’s hard to be sure on here sometimes lol.

 

As a business owner I want to be able to control the narrative and image of my business. It’s a privilege to play in the NFL. You sign a contract and agree to terms of employment. I sign a social media agreement with my employer so if I go out and say a bunch of hateful horrible speech and I also have that I work at company xyz it’s going to bring the company unwanted attention and may harm the company. Even more so if I’m a public figure like working for a media company like ESPN or employed for a sports franchise. If I worked for xyz construction company I suspect it would be harder to prove I’m hurting the companies image but it still is possible. So I can see why a company would want to control who they hire and retain employment if their personal actions harm the business. It’s just the world we live in now...with social media and how small and public our lives are. I understand what your saying and I want to protect peoples privacy but there is a fine line to protecting me and my business survival and my employees right to keep his job. Tough one Doug but put yourself in the position of the owner of a business. You work your whole life and sink all your money and sacrifice your family to build something and a dumb employee could ruin it all and you can’t fire them? Protections need to be on both sides...hopefully we don’t lose that and organizations consider everything carefully.

I don't disagree, but if Congress made a law banning personal conduct as a means to discriminate against employees, I think people would stop judging your business by their conduct, if they even do it to begin with. I can see an employer firing a person who was just sent to jail, but I don't see where a consumer would make a purchase decision based upon whether or not they think one of your employees committed battery but didn't get convicted.

 

Some consumers might decide things that way, but I think most consumers are business-like when they make purchase decisions and research who has the best product at the best price and don't have time to determine if an employed accused child molester actually is a child molester before they decide to buy.

 

Personally, I think its all politics and driven by (social) media harrassment and bullying of employers.

 

[dgambill]

16 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I don't disagree, but if Congress made a law banning personal conduct as a means to discriminate against employees, I think people would stop judging your business by their conduct, if they even do it to begin with. I can see an employer firing a person who was just sent to jail, but I don't see where a consumer would make a purchase decision based upon whether or not they think one of your employees committed battery but didn't get convicted.

 

Some consumers might decide things that way, but I think most consumers are business-like when they make purchase decisions and research who has the best product at the best price and don't have time to determine if an employed accused child molester actually is a child molester before they decide to buy.

 

Personally, I think its all politics and driven by (social) media harrassment and bullying of employers.

 

Wish it worked the way you describe but we know it doesn’t. Look at all the people that boycott and protest etc based on what employees have said and done and companies not firing or reprimanding them. Heck how many people aren’t going to nfl games or watching just on the kneeling thing. Too many sensitive people and agendas out there and we know in this current social climate it ain’t changing. So we know consumers will defiantly make decisions based on your employees personal actions and comments.

[DougDew]

12 hours ago, dgambill said:

Wish it worked the way you describe but we know it doesn’t. Look at all the people that boycott and protest etc based on what employees have said and done and companies not firing or reprimanding them. Heck how many people aren’t going to nfl games or watching just on the kneeling thing. Too many sensitive people and agendas out there and we know in this current social climate it ain’t changing. So we know consumers will defiantly make decisions based on your employees personal actions and comments.

Yes it does.  Having you think it doesn't is how the social media bullies get you to fire the people they want you to fire.

 

Hypothetically, I don't think consumers will change their spending habits at all just because a vice president of a company was charged with a crime, even a serious one, say, child molestation, in his personal life.  I don't think they hold the company responsible even if he stays employed throughout the discovery and trial process. 

 

The anthem thing is a real action that turned off some consumers as they saw it with their own eyes.  There wasn't an alleged behavior that got reported where nobody knows the facts, as in the case here with McCain.  

 

If the company is seen as enabling the behavior, like Jerry Sandusky using his position as coach to perp his crimes, then there is a direct linkage between his actions and the employer, not to mention he did it on company time and on company property under the nose of Paterno for years.

 

The vast majority of consumers have very narrow priorities when they are looking to spend money and make those accurate distinctions in different situations with in a matter of minutes or even seconds.

 

Boycotts are just a bunch of noise, IMO.  Other companies might pull ads out of social media bullying fears but the consumers don't go away because of mere allegations. 

 

 

[dgambill]

2 hours ago, DougDew said:

Yes it does.  Having you think it doesn't is how the social media bullies get you to fire the people they want you to fire.

 

Hypothetically, I don't think consumers will change their spending habits at all just because a vice president of a company was charged with a crime, even a serious one, say, child molestation, in his personal life.  I don't think they hold the company responsible even if he stays employed throughout the discovery and trial process. 

 

The anthem thing is a real action that turned off some consumers as they saw it with their own eyes.  There wasn't an alleged behavior that got reported where nobody knows the facts, as in the case here with McCain.  

 

If the company is seen as enabling the behavior, like Jerry Sandusky using his position as coach to perp his crimes, then there is a direct linkage between his actions and the employer, not to mention he did it on company time and on company property under the nose of Paterno for years.

 

The vast majority of consumers have very narrow priorities when they are looking to spend money and make those accurate distinctions in different situations with in a matter of minutes or even seconds.

 

Boycotts are just a bunch of noise, IMO.  Other companies might pull ads out of social media bullying fears but the consumers don't go away because of mere allegations. 

 

 

I just disagree. Boycotts and demonstrations etc have a real effect....I've seen directly for businesses I've worked for in the past. You compete way way way too hard to get a customer into your business....losing even a few takes thousands of dollars more in marketing to get a new customer to replace them. You don't think ESPN is facing a real problem with viewers and a ton of it based on their social platform? Not saying that is their only issue but its real. And I believe even the personal opinions of its anchors and sportscasters effect them too with viewers. I'm a customer that values my values over my dollar....and I value a business that aligns with my values and also values me personally and treats me with respect when I use their product or enter their business. I don't shop at lots of businesses because of their social platforms and many others because of some of their employees even things they do personally. Why do you think companies so carefully craft their social involvement. Supporting groups and causes etc...customers value that. I fully believe when employees that are a face of an organization or in the public spotlight get involved in crimes or take social stances that become toxic to the business customers will react. If you don't take action then you are saying the issue doesn't mean that much to you or the employee means more than the customers voice. I agree there is a fine line...and businesses shouldn't be allowed to fire for just any cause but that is why we have laws already to protect employees...and they do a good job...we don't need more govt oversight on how we run our businesses. Especially ones that make it difficult to get rid of an employee that is costing you money. I truly believe you don't think people correlate what employees do to the company...but I just disagree....I think in general people will draw a direct connection between the two. They want businesses to reflect their values...its why many businesses are so active on both sides of the social spectrum. If you have employees actively undermining your platform with their every day actions and it is done in a visable high profile way...I absolutely believe it will cost you business and you have to act. We have good laws on the books already...workers are protected...but actions have consequences...and that can spill over into your employment imo. I think we just differ in what we believe the consumer thinks. I deal with lots of strong minded customers...I've seen them walk out the door many times before based on much smaller things and never come back...much less if you have a child molester or a wacko social activist on either side working for you. People don't care...in their eyes your employees=the business.

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, dgambill said:

I just disagree. Boycotts and demonstrations etc have a real effect....I've seen directly for businesses I've worked for in the past. You compete way way way too hard to get a customer into your business....losing even a few takes thousands of dollars more in marketing to get a new customer to replace them. You don't think ESPN is facing a real problem with viewers and a ton of it based on their social platform? Not saying that is their only issue but its real. And I believe even the personal opinions of its anchors and sportscasters effect them too with viewers. I'm a customer that values my values over my dollar....and I value a business that aligns with my values and also values me personally and treats me with respect when I use their product or enter their business. I don't shop at lots of businesses because of their social platforms and many others because of some of their employees even things they do personally. Why do you think companies so carefully craft their social involvement. Supporting groups and causes etc...customers value that. I fully believe when employees that are a face of an organization or in the public spotlight get involved in crimes or take social stances that become toxic to the business customers will react. If you don't take action then you are saying the issue doesn't mean that much to you or the employee means more than the customers voice. I agree there is a fine line...and businesses shouldn't be allowed to fire for just any cause but that is why we have laws already to protect employees...and they do a good job...we don't need more govt oversight on how we run our businesses. Especially ones that make it difficult to get rid of an employee that is costing you money. I truly believe you don't think people correlate what employees do to the company...but I just disagree....I think in general people will draw a direct connection between the two. They want businesses to reflect their values...its why many businesses are so active on both sides of the social spectrum. If you have employees actively undermining your platform with their every day actions and it is done in a visable high profile way...I absolutely believe it will cost you business and you have to act. We have good laws on the books already...workers are protected...but actions have consequences...and that can spill over into your employment imo. I think we just differ in what we believe the consumer thinks. I deal with lots of strong minded customers...I've seen them walk out the door many times before based on much smaller things and never come back...much less if you have a child molester or a wacko social activist on either side working for you. People don't care...in their eyes your employees=the business.

I can't respond to everything. 

 

I simply think that consumers have narrow priorities for what's important when choosing to buy something, and rumored allegations of wrongdoing by an employee simply doesn't move the needle.  it certainly moves the needle for social media bullying, but they may not be customers.

 

I think the more companies meld their product with politics or social causes, the more that company itself becomes divisive and a turnoff.  Take ESPN, people have a narrow scope for why they want to watch it.  If the content continues to look more and more like social cause preaching or political debate, consumers will get turned off further, IMO.  

 

Look at Walmart.  They import everything from non American labor and have questionable suppliers when it comes to rights, and despite all the social media hatred, those issues never moved the needle enough to impact sales in a measurable way.  OTOH, if they melded their company with how socially morally righteous they were, it probably would have mattered.

 

I'm still not convinced that people watch the Colts because of how their players live their personal lives.  You'll get social media bullies trying to piggyback their cause onto the visibility of the Colts, but on-field product is what puts people in or out of the stands. JMO.

[pgt_rob]

Have we heard anything else so far about McCain? I saw Reich held him out of OTAs today.

[dgambill]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

I can't respond to everything. 

 

I simply think that consumers have narrow priorities for what's important when choosing to buy something, and rumored allegations of wrongdoing by an employee simply doesn't move the needle.  it certainly moves the needle for social media bullying, but they may not be customers.

 

I think the more companies meld their product with politics or social causes, the more that company itself becomes divisive and a turnoff.  Take ESPN, people have a narrow scope for why they want to watch it.  If the content continues to look more and more like social cause preaching or political debate, consumers will get turned off further, IMO.  

 

Look at Walmart.  They import everything from non American labor and have questionable suppliers when it comes to rights, and despite all the social media hatred, those issues never moved the needle enough to impact sales in a measurable way.  OTOH, if they melded their company with how socially morally righteous they were, it probably would have mattered.

 

I'm still not convinced that people watch the Colts because of how their players live their personal lives.  You'll get social media bullies trying to piggyback their cause onto the visibility of the Colts, but on-field product is what puts people in or out of the stands. JMO.

I see what your saying. I do agree that it would have to be pretty egregious to turn most consumers away...but I know people that send their kids to different school districts because of one teacher...and things they have done in their personal life. Now over rumors or allegations I do agree that would not be many but if someone is convicted or the evidence is plain and available to see I think people will often associate businesses with its employees. I've seen a jerk in public acting rude and obnoxious to his wife at a restaurant...then went into a place of business and he was there to sell me a car....I just turned around and walked out. It happens...and I think it happens to a larger extent then you believe but I do understand where you are coming from. I do agree there are some companies that have such a huge monopoly or social presence it is almost impossible to ignore them etc (wal-mart/Microsoft/utilities etc) but I think a lot of people vote with their dollars...and will spend them differently if they have strong opinions of your employees actions even outside the work. People don't just boycott businesses...they boycott employees too. It would have to be a pretty big deal or a pretty prominent employee but I think a lot of people act like I would.

 

I know say if we was to have signed a player that was convicted of abusing his wife or child...I'd not be able to go to anymore Colts games. It's just the stand I would have to take to show my displeasure for bringing that type of individual into our community and organization. Just like people stopped watching the Eagles when they signed Michael Vick...people will take a stand even against things your employees have done on personal time. How many and will it last that is very debatable but I do believe there is enough people out there will speak with their wallet that will effect your bottom line. You do make very good points I do acknowledge...like you said...just from my opinion I think it matters.

[dgambill]

4 minutes ago, pgt_rob said:

Have we heard anything else so far about McCain? I saw Reich held him out of OTAs today.

I would imagine he might be held out until they get a good handle on the type of questions that might be asked so they can mitigate any issues and publicity. Want to gather intel etc and formulate where they will go moving forward before putting him back on the field and making him available for questions etc.