Jim Irsay charged with 2 misdemeanor counts of DWI

[ruksak]

I completely respect that you've had your personal situation....

 

But,  I think medical professionals would strongly disagree with you.

The American Medical Association qualified addiction as a disease because of the sudden influx of billions of dollars this brought them via insurance coverage. Withdrawal is a sickness, a temporary one. Addiction....it's all in your head. People like to get high...they like to be addicted. People don't like to have cancer. 

 

As we know, "diseases" are covered by insurance.

 

It's a cabal. 

 

Addiction, the only disease you can choose to quit. But wait, you can't quit being an addict. You're always an addict, so say the people that have programs to sell you.

 

Educate yourselves.

 

"Addiction does not meet the criteria specified for a core disease entity, namely the presence of a primary measurable deviation from physiologic or anatomical norm. Addiction is self-acquired and is not transmissible, contagious, autoimmune, hereditary, degenerative or traumatic. Treatment consists of little more than stopping a given behavior."

[DougDew]

The American Medical Association qualified addiction as a disease because of the sudden influx of billions of dollars this brought them via insurance coverage. Withdrawal is a sickness, a temporary one. Addiction....it's all in your head. People like to get high...they like to be addicted. People don't like to have cancer. 

 

As we know, "diseases" are covered by insurance.

 

It's a cabal. 

 

Addiction, the only disease you can choose to quit. But wait, you can't quit being an addict. You're always an addict, so say the people that have programs to sell you.

 

Educate yourselves.

 

"Addiction does not meet the criteria specified for a core disease entity, namely the presence of a primary measurable deviation from physiologic or anatomical norm. Addiction is self-acquired and is not transmissible, contagious, autoimmune, hereditary, degenerative or traumatic. Treatment consists of little more than stopping a given behavior."

100% correct.  Even the professionals who do wonderful work rehabbing individuals will say, only the person themself is capable of stopping their behavior.  Rehabbers, interventionists, clergy, family.....doctors, insurance.......other people's money....are all powerless against the addict who refuses to commit to going clean.  A real disease tends to need a physical cure by a professional, not by the person themself. 

 

Calling addiction a disease helps to get the clean up process funded.  Labeling somebody an addict for life helps to scare a former user into staying far away from the substances that impact their weaknesses.  Neither label is truthful, IMO; however, both are legitimate tactics that are useful in helping people.

[Superman]

Yeah..."GREAT POST".

 

Warhorse doesn't understand the difference between a careless accident and making the choice to drive while inebriated. 

 

Durp.....

 

You make a choice to drive and text. And it's a full faculty decision, because you're not impaired by alcohol or any other substance. You make a choice to allow distractions to take your attention away from what's happening on the road. And it happens way more often than driving under the influence. If you hurt someone, trying to classify driving while texting as just "a careless accident" isn't going to cut it.

 

I've taken cold or allergy medicine, and had it sneak up on me while I'm driving, causing me to feel an extreme drowsiness. It's nothing like mixing pills or being drunk, obviously, and I'd have no problem passing a field sobriety test. But I can choose not to take those particular medicines and drive, or I can choose to ignore that danger and keep doing what I've done. It's not against the law. But it's still a choice.

 

Look, I understand that some people have a personal and emotional response to anyone who is caught driving under the influence. Some of us have suffered severe losses because of this, so your personal feelings aren't off base. But your personal feelings also aren't what determine how a situation is handled by the law, nor is it fair for you to criticize anyone who doesn't take your same severe and vindictive stance on this issue.

[Superman]

100% correct.  Even the professionals who do wonderful work rehabbing individuals will say, only the person themself is capable of stopping their behavior.  Rehabbers, interventionists, clergy, family.....doctors, insurance.......other people's money....are all powerless against the addict who refuses to commit to going clean.  A real disease tends to need a physical cure by a professional, not by the person themself. 

 

Calling addiction a disease helps to get the clean up process funded.  Labeling somebody an addict for life helps to scare a former user into staying far away from the substances that impact their weaknesses.  Neither label is truthful, IMO; however, both are legitimate tactics that are useful in helping people.

 

 

The American Medical Association qualified addiction as a disease because of the sudden influx of billions of dollars this brought them via insurance coverage. Withdrawal is a sickness, a temporary one. Addiction....it's all in your head. People like to get high...they like to be addicted. People don't like to have cancer. 

 

As we know, "diseases" are covered by insurance.

 

It's a cabal. 

 

Addiction, the only disease you can choose to quit. But wait, you can't quit being an addict. You're always an addict, so say the people that have programs to sell you.

 

Educate yourselves.

 

"Addiction does not meet the criteria specified for a core disease entity, namely the presence of a primary measurable deviation from physiologic or anatomical norm. Addiction is self-acquired and is not transmissible, contagious, autoimmune, hereditary, degenerative or traumatic. Treatment consists of little more than stopping a given behavior."

 

There are tons of medical journals and professionals who insists to the contrary. You post a link to someone in the industry who argues against addiction being a disease; I could post ten who would argue the opposite. (One argument in ruksak's link is that stopping a certain action or behavior makes addiction go away. You could say the same thing about Type 2 Diabetes. You lock a diabetic in a room with no sugar, and his diabetes will go away. Does that mean it's not a disease? Aren't people addicted to sugar? It causes cravings, withdrawals, etc. People don't like renal failure; they like sugar. I only bring this up to say that it's a considerable debate.)

 

It's mostly irrelevant, though. I think we'd all agree that people who are struggling with addiction are seriously damaged, in one way or another, and need help. That doesn't excuse their behavior, and it doesn't mean that they shouldn't suffer consequences for their actions.

[Superman]

And it IS different for a player than an owner, because drug use by players impacts the play of the game, the integrity of the game on the field.  Its why PED's are banned.  An owner being stoned in his seat at the game has no impact on the product on the field.  Eric Winston is wrong....it should not be subjected to the same diciplinary framework. 

 

That difference is also seen in the Sterling incident.  As an owner, an employer, saying racially offensive comments is different than a player who might even use the n word on the field.  Sterling's use of the word in a capacity as owner is much more serious than a player using it.  (Wasn't there a WR on the eagles who said something offensive)  OTOH, an owner's use of drugs is much LESS serious than a player using them.

 

The difference is that Irsay is an ambassador of the game, a steward for this franchise, and should be a positive example. His being arrested for DWI is a lot different than him being under the influence while safely tucked away in his luxury suite. 

 

I do think that, the higher up the chain you are, the higher the accountability. So owners should be held to a higher standard for things that happen off the field, as his example impacts the league and public perception of it. Irsay should get a much greater penalty than any player would, IMO.

 

What I disagree with is the idea that the league should fly in and smack him around without regard for the actual facts, or the way the situation plays out. Waiting to gather all the pertinent information and seeing what happens makes perfect sense. That's what the league is doing with Aldon Smith, Ray Rice, Greg Hardy, etc., and all of those players actually endangered other people. So I think Ryan Clark, Eric Winston and DeMaurice Smith are way out of line in that sense. 

[ViriLudant]

I'm sorry if I missed this, but was it proven that Jim had prescriptions for those drugs?

[ruksak]

You make a choice to drive and text. And it's a full faculty decision, because you're not impaired by alcohol or any other substance. You make a choice to allow distractions to take your attention away from what's happening on the road. And it happens way more often than driving under the influence. If you hurt someone, trying to classify driving while texting as just "a careless accident" isn't going to cut it.

 

I've taken cold or allergy medicine, and had it sneak up on me while I'm driving, causing me to feel an extreme drowsiness. It's nothing like mixing pills or being drunk, obviously, and I'd have no problem passing a field sobriety test. But I can choose not to take those particular medicines and drive, or I can choose to ignore that danger and keep doing what I've done. It's not against the law. But it's still a choice.

 

Look, I understand that some people have a personal and emotional response to anyone who is caught driving under the influence. Some of us have suffered severe losses because of this, so your personal feelings aren't off base. But your personal feelings also aren't what determine how a situation is handled by the law, nor is it fair for you to criticize anyone who doesn't take your same severe and vindictive stance on this issue.

 

"Severe" is right. The next time Irsay does this, I hope he drives off a bridge. That goes for every last one of you alcoholic, pill popping pieces of garbage that "think" you're OK to drive home. Just do the world a favor and kill yourselves in the privacy of your own home, and have some decency about it. Do it in the shower so as not to make a mess that someone else has to clean up. 

[Superman]

"Severe" is right. The next time Irsay does this, I hope he drives off a bridge. That goes for every last one of you alcoholic, pill popping pieces of garbage that "think" you're OK to drive home. Just do the world a favor and kill yourselves in the privacy of your own home, and have some decency about it. Do it in the shower so as not to make a mess that someone else has to clean up. 

 

So because I don't agree with you, I'm a piece of garbage that should kill myself?

 

Yeah, you just keep frothing at the mouth over there.

[Jay Kirk]

Fact: I've pled out clients charged with similar charges for similar level misdemeanors.

All depends where your going to court and how much you have to spend Fact !

[ruksak]

So because I don't agree with you, I'm a piece of garbage that should kill myself?

 

Yeah, you just keep frothing at the mouth over there.

No, not you. You should know me better than that. 

 

I would never say that about a forum member. Look, I just despise the practice of driving while intoxicated. It hits home. Probably shouldn't post at all since it rubs my emotions so harsh. 

 

I should've been more clear. Or rather, I shouldn't have posted at all. Sorry. 

 

I don't have a much better opinion of people that mess with their phones while they drive. But that's another subject. I'll just move along since I cannot discuss this rationally. My typical sense of humor fails to show up with these sorts of subjects. 

[DougDew]

The difference is that Irsay is an ambassador of the game, a steward for this franchise, and should be a positive example. His being arrested for DWI is a lot different than him being under the influence while safely tucked away in his luxury suite. 

 

I do think that, the higher up the chain you are, the higher the accountability. So owners should be held to a higher standard for things that happen off the field, as his example impacts the league and public perception of it. Irsay should get a much greater penalty than any player would, IMO.

 

What I disagree with is the idea that the league should fly in and smack him around without regard for the actual facts, or the way the situation plays out. Waiting to gather all the pertinent information and seeing what happens makes perfect sense. That's what the league is doing with Aldon Smith, Ray Rice, Greg Hardy, etc., and all of those players actually endangered other people. So I think Ryan Clark, Eric Winston and DeMaurice Smith are way out of line in that sense. 

But, to this point, I think Irsay's transgressions are more of a moral issue than a legal issue.  The idea that a person gets punished by their peers for getting a DWI on their own time goes a bit too far for me.  And yes, there is a difference between getting pulled over for going 10 mph, and having the police show up at an accident scene where you were going 80 mph and slammed into a pole (reckless driving and destruction of property).

 

You could also say that he shouldn't smoke pot, because the NFL policy is the players shouldn't smoke pot, and he needs to set the standard.  Well, if the players need to stay in shape, I guess that means an owner needs to lift weights and run 3 miles every day to set an example.

 

I just think that players and owners have different roles, their responsibilities are different, and the definition of what type of conduct is detrimental to the league is different for each role.  I just don't think that simple DWI (no reckless driving or destruction of property) is cause for suspension for an owner.....or a player for that matter.  

 

However, if it was a player who got the DWI and was in the condition Irsay was, as an owner, I would have concerns about how serious of a professional the player was, considering how he is abused his physique, and might cut him because of it.

[BrentMc11]

All depends where your going to court and how much you have to spend Fact !

I know some places that will keep you in jail for nothing...I will not mention them...

[Superman]

No, not you. You should know me better than that. 

 

I would never say that about a forum member. Look, I just despise the practice of driving while intoxicated. It hits home. Probably shouldn't post at all since it rubs my emotions so harsh. 

 

I should've been more clear. Or rather, I shouldn't have posted at all. Sorry. 

 

I don't have a much better opinion of people that mess with their phones while they drive. But that's another subject. I'll just move along since I cannot discuss this rationally. My typical sense of humor fails to show up with these sorts of subjects. 

 

I said earlier that I understand personal feelings about this. But I definitely think you're going overboard. 

[Superman]

But, to this point, I think Irsay's transgressions are more of a moral issue than a legal issue.  The idea that a person gets punished by their peers for getting a DWI on their own time goes a bit too far for me.  And yes, there is a difference between getting pulled over for going 10 mph, and having the police show up at an accident scene where you were going 80 mph and slammed into a pole (reckless driving and destruction of property).

 

You could also say that he shouldn't smoke pot, because the NFL policy is the players shouldn't smoke pot, and he needs to set the standard.  Well, if the players need to stay in shape, I guess that means an owner needs to lift weights and run 3 miles every day to set an example.

 

I just think that players and owners have different roles, their responsibilities are different, and the definition of what type of conduct is detrimental to the league is different for each role.  I just don't think that simple DWI (no reckless driving or destruction of property) is cause for suspension for an owner.....or a player for that matter.  

 

However, if it was a player who got the DWI and was in the condition Irsay was, as an owner, I would have concerns about how serious of a professional the player was, considering how he is abused his physique, and might cut him because of it.

 

The problem isn't that Irsay took or even was addicted to pain pills. If he had simply checked himself into rehab for a few weeks, then we found out about it later on, there would be no need to discipline him.

 

The problem is the DWI. Him getting caught breaking the law in such a dangerous manner has far reaching consequences, and as an ambassador for the league, he should be held to a very high standard. A player might not be suspended for a first offense; it's hard to gauge the league's reaction to things like that, partly because teams are stepping in and taking action themselves. The league hasn't actually suspended anyone under the personal conduct policy in a couple years. But the standard should be higher for a coach, for an executive, and ultimately for an owner. IMO.

[DougDew]

I'm sorry if I missed this, but was it proven that Jim had prescriptions for those drugs?

I had HEARD that he had prescriptions and the drugs were eventually deemed to be legally possessed.  But, at the time, some questions arose because some of the drugs were in different bottles or maybe in bottles with expired prescription dates.  That's what I had heard.

 

I assume the authorities went to his doctor or pharmacist to verify he had prescriptions for everything.  Of course, whether those medical professionals are being totally truthful may be another story.

 

And....I don't know if Jim Irsay goes to his neighborhood CVS to get his prescription filled, or has them delivered.  I assume someone of his wealth and community status is allowed to have a process where he can get any prescription filled with a bit more privacy than a normal person.

[Superman]

I had HEARD that he had prescriptions and the drugs were eventually deemed to be legally possessed.  But, at the time, some questions arose because some of the drugs were in different bottles or maybe in bottles with expired prescription dates.  That's what I had heard.

 

I assume the authorities went to his doctor or pharmacist to verify he had prescriptions for everything.  Of course, whether those medical professionals are being totally truthful may be another story.

 

And....I don't know if Jim Irsay goes to his neighborhood CVS to get his prescription filled, or has them delivered.  I assume someone of his wealth and community status is allowed to have a process where he can get any prescription filled with a bit more privacy than a normal person.

 

He wasn't charged with possession. I didn't hear what you heard about the drugs being legally possessed, but I speculated that might be the case once the charges were announced. Since he wasn't charged with possession, I suspect we might not hear anything else about that.

[Warhorse]

Emotions do run high around certain subjects....this is certainly one. I pushed my response envelope a bit and it may have added the confrontational din. So to do a better job of explaining myself, I will clarify.

 

I do not believe that driving under the influence of a drug is OK, or no big deal. But in that same breath.....I see ANY distracted driving as the same level of irresponsibility. Talking on the phone, putting on makeup, looking to the side, trying to grab something out of the back seat, etc. In my nearly 40 years of operating a moving vehicle, I have been in 2 accidents that I was at least partially at fault. Both times I was not under the influence of anything but distraction. But, not without remorse, I have also driven under the influence. I was so determined and hyper vigilant that thankfully nothing ever happened. In the end, I am disappointed when emotions invite a person to single out another, an act, or whatever...without looking at the whole picture.

 

Everyday I see at least a half dozen examples of drivers doing things while driving that are far more offensive to me than driving under 20mph, coasting through a stop sign and having been on pain pills. Perhaps he was doing that speed because he didn't want to harm someone. I know that sounds like an excuse for Jim's behavior...it is not.

 

In the end, I accept Ruk's high emotions, as we all have tender places that dont like to be disturbed. But I also appreciate others saying, "hey"...that is unfairly lumped together.

[DougDew]

The problem isn't that Irsay took or even was addicted to pain pills. If he had simply checked himself into rehab for a few weeks, then we found out about it later on, there would be no need to discipline him.

 

The problem is the DWI. Him getting caught breaking the law in such a dangerous manner has far reaching consequences, and as an ambassador for the league, he should be held to a very high standard. A player might not be suspended for a first offense; it's hard to gauge the league's reaction to things like that, partly because teams are stepping in and taking action themselves. The league hasn't actually suspended anyone under the personal conduct policy in a couple years. But the standard should be higher for a coach, for an executive, and ultimately for an owner. IMO.

I can't disagree a whole lot.  Except that I think it ultimately comes down to... that breaking the law is seen as violating a moral code. I guess I have an unusual opinion about these things. 

 

I don't think A Hernandez should have been cut because he appears to be a thug and was indicted for murder.  I think he should be cut because his incarceration prevents him from contributing to the 53 man roster.  He's simply unavailable.  In theory, if an athlete is convicted and serves his legal time, I would consider signing him when he got out of prison as an ex-convict.  

 

I think these sports teams and leagues are trying to portray a certain image in order to enhance their profits, and playing off of some sort of common moral code to do so.  If it doesn't fit their moral code, a player is at risk of being cut, or an owner disciplined.  The problem is, that moral code changes. 

 

Look how images have changed......Evidentally, pot smoking is fairly common amongst the NBA players.  And for whatever reason, it gets a pass.  What would happen if these honed professional athletes were sitting around smoking cigarettes in their private time?  Wouldn't they be seen as less than fit, less than professional? Wouldn't there be a push to get them to stop?  I think I'd laugh my butt off at the image of Roy Hibbert sitting on his couch smoking a cigarette.  I have a problem with athletes who willfully injest smoke into their lungs.  Yet the moral-code-of-the-day gives a player a pass if it were pot he was smoking, but wouldn't if he frequently lit up a Marlboro. 

 

I don't have a problem with Irsay breaking the law, in this relatively minor way, as long as he serves his time and it doesn't interfere with the team's activities...and he has shown that he has a contingency plan with his daughter in case he becomes incapacitated for whatever reason.

[Superman]

I can't disagree a whole lot.  Except that I think it ultimately comes down to... that breaking the law is seen as violating a moral code. I guess I have an unusual opinion about these things. 

 

I don't think A Hernandez should have been cut because he appears to be a thug and was indicted for murder.  I think he should be cut because his incarceration prevents him from contributing to the 53 man roster.  He's simply unavailable.  In theory, if an athlete is convicted and serves his legal time, I would consider signing him when he got out of prison as an ex-convict.  

 

I think these sports teams and leagues are trying to portray a certain image in order to enhance their profits, and playing off of some sort of common moral code to do so.  If it doesn't fit their moral code, a player is at risk of being cut, or an owner disciplined.  The problem is, that moral code changes. 

 

Look how images have changed......Evidentally, pot smoking is fairly common amongst the NBA players.  And for whatever reason, it gets a pass.  What would happen if these honed professional athletes were sitting around smoking cigarettes in their private time?  Wouldn't they be seen as less than fit, less than professional? Wouldn't there be a push to get them to stop?  I think I'd laugh my butt off at the image of Roy Hibbert sitting on his couch smoking a cigarette.  I have a problem with athletes who willfully injest smoke into their lungs.  Yet the moral-code-of-the-day gives a player a pass if it were pot he was smoking, but wouldn't if he frequently lit up a Marlboro. 

 

I don't have a problem with Irsay breaking the law, in this relatively minor way, as long as he serves his time and it doesn't interfere with the team's activities...and he has shown that he has a contingency plan with his daughter in case he becomes incapacitated for whatever reason.

 

Yeah, we disagree on a number of points, but I understand what you're saying.

 

I'll just say this: If I ran a company with a high public profile, and one of my employees was accused of murder, I don't think I'd want to continue employing that person. Same thing for an ex-con applying for a job, although certain crimes are viewed differently. But businesses frequently take into consideration a potential employee's legal history.

[jvan1973]

Addiction isn't a disease, it's a choice. A choice I made for years.

yeah, that's incorrect

[Nadine]

Emotions do run high around certain subjects....this is certainly one. I pushed my response envelope a bit and it may have added the confrontational din. So to do a better job of explaining myself, I will clarify.

 

I do not believe that driving under the influence of a drug is OK, or no big deal. But in that same breath.....I see ANY distracted driving as the same level of irresponsibility. Talking on the phone, putting on makeup, looking to the side, trying to grab something out of the back seat, etc. In my nearly 40 years of operating a moving vehicle, I have been in 2 accidents that I was at least partially at fault. Both times I was not under the influence of anything but distraction. But, not without remorse, I have also driven under the influence. I was so determined and hyper vigilant that thankfully nothing ever happened. In the end, I am disappointed when emotions invite a person to single out another, an act, or whatever...without looking at the whole picture.

 

Everyday I see at least a half dozen examples of drivers doing things while driving that are far more offensive to me than driving under 20mph, coasting through a stop sign and having been on pain pills. Perhaps he was doing that speed because he didn't want to harm someone. I know that sounds like an excuse for Jim's behavior...it is not.

 

In the end, I accept Ruk's high emotions, as we all have tender places that dont like to be disturbed. But I also appreciate others saying, "hey"...that is unfairly lumped together.

 

People are emotional about this.  I often see people get in their car......start the engine......move into traffic.......and then start making calls.

 

I swear whenever I'm at at intersection or in a round a bout........most people turning are on their cell phones.

 

And I always wonder why?  I try to never be on my phone in the car.......I never make calls. But every once in a while, I answer the phone while I'm driving.

 

Honestly it hardly ever happens but, one time it did.  I was in traffic waiting to turn left and I answered my phone

 

And this guy in oncoming traffic sees me.........hangs his head out the window and yells "LADY GET OFF YOUR PHONE"

 

I thought he created much more of a traffic hazard yelling at me rather than keeping his eye on where he was going.

 

So, while I agree that people should not drive distracted.......I think there are many ways of being and causing distactions.

 

In some areas they have laws that you have to use wireless to talk on the phone. I think that's great. My daughter just got a new car and she doesn't even have to take her phone out of her purse to answer it.

[The Old Crow]

Irsay's license was just suspended for a year according to news reports. Where is Kato when you need him ?

[bavanlan]

All depends where your going to court and how much you have to spend Fact !

 

Jurisdiction is important because every prosecutor has their basic plea agreement for first timers.

 

Without exaggeration, it was probably negotiated in under 2 minutes.  They probably spent more time telling stories.  There's really not a lot that goes into it.

[DougDew]

People are emotional about this.  I often see people get in their car......start the engine......move into traffic.......and then start making calls.

 

I swear whenever I'm at at intersection or in a round a bout........most people turning are on their cell phones.

 

And I always wonder why?  I try to never be on my phone in the car.......I never make calls. But every once in a while, I answer the phone while I'm driving.

 

Honestly it hardly ever happens but, one time it did.  I was in traffic waiting to turn left and I answered my phone

 

And this guy in oncoming traffic sees me.........hangs his head out the window and yells "LADY GET OFF YOUR PHONE"

 

I thought he created much more of a traffic hazard yelling at me rather than keeping his eye on where he was going.

 

So, while I agree that people should not drive distracted.......I think there are many ways of being and causing distactions.

 

In some areas they have laws that you have to use wireless to talk on the phone. I think that's great. My daughter just got a new car and she doesn't even have to take her phone out of her purse to answer it.

I agree with this...but I'll take it one step farther in maybe an unpopular direction.

 

There are drivers that I feel safer riding with that would blow .15 in a breathalizer than other drivers who drive sober.

[Jules]

"Severe" is right. The next time Irsay does this, I hope he drives off a bridge. That goes for every last one of you alcoholic, pill popping pieces of garbage that "think" you're OK to drive home. Just do the world a favor and kill yourselves in the privacy of your own home, and have some decency about it. Do it in the shower so as not to make a mess that someone else has to clean up. 

 

So if you snort, shoot up or smoke does that get you off the hook here?

 

 

J/k

 

 

 

 

You know the irony to me? A large part of this country is also addicted to things like caffeine, over the counter meds, sugar and various other things deemed "safe" but nobody cares about it cause it's "legal."  A lot of people in this country drive sleep deprived on a daily basis which is also seriously dangerous. A lot of people even eat while they drive thanks to our drive thru nation and text, google or talk on the phone while driving which is also deemed acceptable to daily societal norms unless someone happens to get into an accident. Even if they do.......it's not pill popping alcoholics.

 

 

Now these are not excuses for Irsay, it just goes to show you at times how many skeletons in the closet are around us all the time and we choose to blame just a few substances or instances at times.

 

 

I once put makeup on driving while late, a few times. I admit this. It's an awful thing to do and I try never to do it but I have done it.

[DougDew]

 

I'll just say this: If I ran a company with a high public profile, and one of my employees was accused of murder, I don't think I'd want to continue employing that person. 

 

See, I think that can be a dangerous policy...businesses trying to manage profits by making moral judgments about their employees...or leagues about their owners.

 

What if that employee was found not guility, even proven innocent.  How much lost income did your action cause him and his family?  I think its best when the almighty punishes moral transgressions, and the court punishes legal transgressions.  I think businesses don't really have to proper tools to do either.  I think they should focus on hiring the best workers available.

[Jules]

lol is this conversation now my fault for saying I supported Jim Irsay?

 

 

Hey.....I support the outcasts of society.

[Superman]

See, I think that can be a dangerous policy...businesses trying to manage profits by making moral judgments about their employees...or leagues about their owners.

What if that employee was found not guility, even proven innocent. How much lost income did your action cause him and his family? I think its best when the almighty punishes moral transgressions, and the court punishes legal transgressions. I think businesses don't really have to proper tools to do either. I think they should focus on hiring the best workers available.

It's not a policy, it's just my personal opinion. I think every situation is different. Specifically with the Pats and Hernandez, I think that was a pretty simple and easy decision to make.

I don't think a business should try to police morality or legality. A business exists to make money. That's why I disagree with your statement about managing profits. A business determines what's best for the company, its employees and customers as a whole, and the community, and tries to make decisions that promote all those interests. At its core, that's what running a business is about. If you determine that the personal transgressions of one of your employees is going to affect your bottom line, getting rid of that employee might be the proper course of action. It's too bad for him and his family, but what about the other families that rely on your business? You maintain profits so you can continue to do good for the many.

[Nadine]

I agree with this...but I'll take it one step farther in maybe an unpopular direction.

 

There are drivers that I feel safer riding with that would blow .15 in a breathalizer than other drivers who drive sober.

yeah but neither are great options

Some people are aggressive drivers and my blood pressure goes up when I am one of their passengers!

IDK, some people change when they get behind the wheel.......they do and say things that are scarey.

That's where road rage comes from.  You never really know what kind of crazy people are around you when you are driving

[bavanlan]

I once put makeup on driving while late, a few times. I admit this. It's an awful thing to do and I try never to do it but I have done it.

I never took you for someone who liked farding in a vehicle.

(That's what it's called).