Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, Superman said:

If I'm ever tried for a crime, I hope you aren't on the jury.

 

Tried for a crime you didn't commit?

 

Isn't that the opposite of what happened to Smollett since he committed a crime but wasn't tried?

 

haha

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Tried for a crime you didn't commit?

 

Isn't that the opposite of what happened to Smollett since he committed a crime but wasn't tried?

 

haha

Exactly. I am confused to @Superman post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I don't know the facts about what happened there, just like I don't know for sure what happened with Tyreek Hill and Crystal Espinal. If he did pay to have an attack staged, and then reported it as if he were really attacked, then he's guilty of multiple crimes.

 

 

That depends on his employer, the terms of his employment, and whether those terms are legally enforceable. 

 

Let me ask you a question in return. If you ran a private TV network with programming that focuses on safe driving, and your advertisers are all drawn to your network to advertise to your target demographic, but your highest profile TV personality was arrested for DUI and reckless driving, would you continue to employ that person?

Do you mean arrested or convicted?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Jussie Smollett committed a crime by False Reporting to police. That is a Class 4 Felony in Illinois and a Class B Misdemeanor here in Indiana. Punishable upto 6 months in jail and hefty court fines. He clearly lied and everyone knows it. He had his charges dropped because he has a lot of money. The evidence was right there to prosecute him. His employers know he lied so they said goodbye. They aren't dumb. 

So, would you suspend him from his job for it.  And for how many games?   Is 2 enough? is 10 too many? 

 

I mean, if he's in jail from August until January, I'd probably announce that I was suspending him for the season. :default_20smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

So, would you suspend him from his job for it.  And for how many games?   Is 2 enough? is 10 too many? 

 

I mean, if he's in jail from August until January, I'd probably announce that I was suspending him for the season. :default_20smile:

Charges got dropped against him but his employer believed he was guilty is why they fired him. I am not sure what I would do in his case because he wasn't convicted of anything but either was OJ of murder. He could sue his employer because they fired off his character and he wasn't convicted of anything. That is another thing business's have to watch. The thing with Hill is, is that audio was terrible. It was bad enough to where some kind of punishment should've happened IMO but not sure what? Without video or catching someone in an obvious lie it is hard to measure these things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, I have learned in life nobody should jump to conclusions without good proof something happened to blame someone. I never blame anyone for anything unless I have tons of proof to do so. If the proof looks iffy than I have serious doubts about someone being guilty. If the proof is overwhelming it is hard to ignore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Charges got dropped against him but his employer believed he was guilty is why they fired him. I am not sure what I would do in his case because he wasn't convicted of anything but either was OJ of murder. He could sue his employer because they fired off his character and he wasn't convicted of anything. That is another thing business's have to watch. The thing with Hill is, is that audio was terrible. It was bad enough to where some kind of punishment should've happened IMO but not sure what? Without video or catching someone in an obvious lie it is hard to measure these things.

Why did his employer believe he was guilty?  Has the DA released all of the evidence?

 

As a citizen, I can think he is guilty.  As a CEO, I don't think I have that much latitude. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Why did his employer believe he was guilty?  Has the DA released all of the evidence?

 

As a citizen, I can think he is guilty.  As a CEO, I don't think I have that much latitude. 

 

"Why did his employer believe he was guilty". I am not sure but I am guessing they believed the evidence was overwhelming against him despite the charges being dropped. Employers and the law is different. The law and the NFL is different. Goodell runs the NFL so he can do what he wants, he's the boss of the NFL. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Superman said:

 

"Don't break your toddler's arm" = politics. Got it.

 

 

Imagine equating fishing to child abuse.

 

Good heavens...

 

That is 100% correct.

 

NFL knows NOTHING about the incident; they didn't call any witnesses, didn't investigate or research the case, didn't make any arrests, press any charges, select any jury, conduct any polygraph or lie detector tests, conduct any DNA tests or interview hospital workers, etc. People need to stop thinking just because the league is run by rich owners, that they are the gospel when it comes to ANYTHING.

 

The NFL knows as much as we know, and 100% of our knowledge of this case has been through internet websites and forums where anyone can post anything without any substantiation of the truth.

 

That is why the league is engaging in "politics"; they're making decisions based on how an incident looks in terms of the league instead of whether or not the incident is true.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

If you think Jussie Smollett is innocent or OJ is I hope you aren't on the jury anywhere. I guess with OJ you did not need to be because he got off haha .

 

Your comment is really off base with me and surprising because I do not think everyone is necessarily guilty. When the evidence is overwhelming it is tough to ignore though in certain cases.

 

Also it depends on your case and what evidence I see. I think Smollett and OJ's was pretty overwhelming but yet charges were dropped against Smollett and OJ was proven innocent of murder. Law is the law I guess. Like I think Mike Tyson was innocent of rape and he was proven guilty. I do not think everyone is lying or guilty but in Smollett's and OJ's case to me it was clear. In Tyson's case it was his word vs hers. She went up to his room at 2am to have coffee I guess - yeah right. It was all about money there. Some things are just common sense.

 

I was being snarky, and I hope you didn't take it personally.

 

But I do think it's problematic that people form such strong opinions about guilt and innocence from this public trial format. One thing I think it's important to remember is that none of us have all the facts. That's what a legal trial is for, and that's why a presumption of innocence is so fundamental.

 

I don't have a very strong opinion about the Smollett situation, and I'm not claiming he's innocent. I do think it's an exaggeration for anyone to claim that an accused person 'is clearly lying and everyone knows it.' 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Tried for a crime you didn't commit?

 

Isn't that the opposite of what happened to Smollett since he committed a crime but wasn't tried?

 

haha

 

I'm talking about a presumption of innocence. 

 

14 hours ago, DougDew said:

Do you mean arrested or convicted?

 

 

Arrested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

If you think Jussie Smollett is innocent or OJ is I hope you aren't on the jury anywhere. I guess with OJ you did not need to be because he got off haha .

 

Your comment is really off base with me and surprising because I do not think everyone is necessarily guilty. When the evidence is overwhelming it is tough to ignore though in certain cases.

 

Also it depends on your case and what evidence I see. I think Smollett and OJ's was pretty overwhelming but yet charges were dropped against Smollett and OJ was proven innocent of murder. Law is the law I guess. Like I think Mike Tyson was innocent of rape and he was proven guilty. I do not think everyone is lying or guilty but in Smollett's and OJ's case to me it was clear. In Tyson's case it was his word vs hers. She went up to his room at 2am to have coffee I guess - yeah right. It was all about money there. Some things are just common sense.

To the portion in bold: OJ was found  "not guilty' of murder. There is a subtle difference between "not guilty" and "proven innocent." OJ would have been "proven innocent" if they found the "real killer" and could prove it without a doubt.

 

OJ was found "not guilty' simply meaning that the prosecution did not present a good case, with enough evidence to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. 

 

I'm not sure why I had to chime in with this info...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Let me ask you a question in return. If you ran a private TV network with programming that focuses on safe driving, and your advertisers are all drawn to your network to advertise to your target demographic, but your highest profile TV personality was arrested for DUI and reckless driving, would you continue to employ that person?

In your description, the company's product is tied to safe driving.   So the transgression is more relevant if it was shown he actually was UI.  If he was a good lamp designer for my lighting fixture company, I wouldn't even care that much if he got convicted for DUI.

 

Most companies aren't in the business of selling personal conduct, so I'm not sure how relevant a personal conduct policy is to their bottom line.  I think normally personal conduct policies are written for when an employee bad-mouths the company on the internet, says the products they make are junk or something.  Not their private life conduct.

 

The NFL's product is football, not parenting, husbanding, or safe driving.    IIRC, nothing in a player's personal life that has been enforced under the NFL policy is related to its product.  (Its debatable if the likability of the players is a huge part of the product of capturing fan interest compared to interesting play combined with a winning record. )

 

I understand that the DA can only prosecute evidence that is acceptable, while everybody else has the luxury of forming opinions based upon the totality of evidence.  But in the capacity of a CEO, I wouldn't accept the responsibility of reviewing the evidence for the purpose of disciplining someone with their personal lives.  In the capacity of a parent, I would review everything associated with my child's behavior under the overarching principal that I am trying to raise a good member of society according to my moral values, which is not the role of a CEO.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, DougDew said:

The NFL's product is football

 

As a form of entertainment.

 

Remember we're talking about public figures, here.  Celebrities.  So their behavior in their personal lives can directly affect the marketability of the business.

 

Your lamp designer example is probably more applicable to like a helmet designer.  I doubt the personal conduct policy of the NFL applies to all those behind-the-scenes types because their personal lives don't have the same effect on the marketability of the business as the "celebrities" on the field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DougDew said:

In your description, the company's product is tied to safe driving.   So the transgression is more relevant if it was shown he actually was UI. 

 

So would you continue to employ him or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I was being snarky, and I hope you didn't take it personally.

 

But I do think it's problematic that people form such strong opinions about guilt and innocence from this public trial format. One thing I think it's important to remember is that none of us have all the facts. That's what a legal trial is for, and that's why a presumption of innocence is so fundamental.

 

I don't have a very strong opinion about the Smollett situation, and I'm not claiming he's innocent. I do think it's an exaggeration for anyone to claim that an accused person 'is clearly lying and everyone knows it.' 

It's cool, I thought you were being sarcastic. I have known you long enough to know. I almost responded to your post that you would not want me on a jury with a laugh to acknowledge you were joking around, I should have haha . I do agree each individual case has to be looked at closely and nobody should assume anything. I guess my - clearly lying and everyone knows it quote was a bit over board because maybe he wasn't guilty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Flash7 said:

To the portion in bold: OJ was found  "not guilty' of murder. There is a subtle difference between "not guilty" and "proven innocent." OJ would have been "proven innocent" if they found the "real killer" and could prove it without a doubt.

 

OJ was found "not guilty' simply meaning that the prosecution did not present a good case, with enough evidence to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. 

 

I'm not sure why I had to chime in with this info...

Good point. See I word things wrong sometimes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

As a form of entertainment.

 

Remember we're talking about public figures, here.  Celebrities.  So their behavior in their personal lives can directly affect the marketability of the business.

 

 

Why?  I always thought a winning record, speed of the game, and interesting play determined ratings.  And players like Brett Favre were a JA.  An unconvicted crime wouldn't seem to make someone less likable than an overall JA, IMO.

 

Tiger Woods was a JA. Many people watched him back in the day hoping he'd lose.  Habitual adulterer.  Had a bad mug shot for DUI.  Convicted, IIRC. People like him again.  Nike never dropped him AFAIK.

 

Dropping a player at the first problem in order to try to save an incremental measurement of image seems like a kneejerk unsophisticated way to approach it, all the while pretending to be measured and morally righteous.  Stuff like that turns me off from the NFL.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Superman said:

 

So would you continue to employ him or not?

The premise is that a high profile person who worked for a company who's mission was to promote safe driving got arrested for DUI.  Would I fire him upon arrest, which I think your question was.

 

No.

 

Again, the mission of the company was to promote safe driving. Arrest, no.  Conviction, I'd have to see the facts to see if there was intent or pattern. I  wouldn't even bother him if the safe driving promotion was simply a socially-aware preachy marketing campaign.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DougDew said:

I always thought a winning record, speed of the game, and interesting play determined ratings.

 

How do you feel about Colin Kaepernick?

 

He was a dynamic fast QB that took a team to a SB, yet he got dropped faster than a hot potato without even a single arrest or anything close to what's going on with Hill.

 

His personal life affected the marketability of the NFL, so he got black-balled.

 

5 hours ago, DougDew said:

Dropping a player at the first problem in order to try to save an incremental measurement of image seems like a kneejerk unsophisticated way to approach it, all the while pretending to be measured and morally righteous.  Stuff like that turns me off from the NFL.

 

The same thing happened with Tom Cruise and Mel Gibson years ago.  Their personal lives were affecting the marketability of their movies, so Hollywood black-balled them.

 

It's the world of entertainment.  :dunno:

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2019 at 1:11 PM, Superman said:

 

So would you continue to employ him or not?

So my question to you is money, draft pics, or trade possibilities aside, Would you want this player on the Colts? Even without knowing the results of  his questionable past ? based on what you know ?  Would this not raise any integrity, or concerns to have this man on your roster? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2019 at 11:18 PM, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

How do you feel about Colin Kaepernick?

 

He was a dynamic fast QB that took a team to a SB, yet he got dropped faster than a hot potato without even a single arrest or anything close to what's going on with Hill.

 

His personal life affected the marketability of the NFL, so he got black-balled.

 

 

No he didn't.   He made himself unemployable.   Self inflicted.  

 

HE chose to kneel during a game where veterans were being honored.  Veterans who had friends and family return in coffins draped with the flag.

 

HE chose to wear a shirt honoring Castro.

 

HE chose to wear socks depicting police officers as pigs.

 

HE had a try out with Seattle.

 

HE stayed with a girlfriend and did not chastise her when she called the owner of a team interested in signing him a slave owner.   

 

He made himself unemployable.   

On 7/26/2019 at 1:11 PM, Superman said:

 

So would you continue to employ him or not?

In that case, he would be let go.   Zero tolerance.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Myles said:

No he didn't.   He made himself unemployable.   Self inflicted.  

 

HE chose to kneel during a game where veterans were being honored.  Veterans who had friends and family return in coffins draped with the flag.

 

HE chose to wear a shirt honoring Castro.

 

HE chose to wear socks depicting police officers as pigs.

 

HE had a try out with Seattle.

 

HE stayed with a girlfriend and did not chastise her when she called the owner of a team interested in signing him a slave owner.   

 

He made himself unemployable.   

In that case, he would be let go.   Zero tolerance.   

 

Right.  None of those things had to do with his winning games or fast dynamic play as a football player, as @DougDew was referring to.

 

His personal life affected the marketability of the business.  He made himself unemployable.  Which is what Tyreek Hill would be doing if he stayed with his baby-momma and ended up beating her or his kid again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, horseshoecrabs said:

So my question to you is money, draft pics, or trade possibilities aside, Would you want this player on the Colts? Even without knowing the results of  his questionable past ? based on what you know ?  Would this not raise any integrity, or concerns to have this man on your roster? 

 

Personally, I'm not willing to say yes or no based on my limited knowledge of his situation. I will say that I think it's all very concerning, and if I were running a team I would need complete buy-in from the entire personnel and coaching staff before even considering drafting a player with a questionable past. I'd also need to be convinced that said player is locked in and committed to good decision making and maximizing his potential on the field.

 

And if any team took a look at a player like this and said right away 'we're not interested,' I wouldn't fault them. The draft already has a low hit rate. When you add additional variables, your odds of success are further diminished. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2019 at 3:00 PM, DougDew said:

The premise is that a high profile person who worked for a company who's mission was to promote safe driving got arrested for DUI.  Would I fire him upon arrest, which I think your question was.

 

No.

 

Again, the mission of the company was to promote safe driving. Arrest, no.  Conviction, I'd have to see the facts to see if there was intent or pattern. I  wouldn't even bother him if the safe driving promotion was simply a socially-aware preachy marketing campaign.  

 

Can you understand why a company with that mission would sever ties with a high profile employee who was arrested for DUI? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is this topic even still going on haha ? What more can be said?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Can you understand why a company with that mission would sever ties with a high profile employee who was arrested for DUI? 

With the high accuracy rate of breathalyzers and the high conviction rate, it would be very understandable for the anti drunk driving company to sever ties immediately.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, csmopar said:

Why is this topic even still going on haha ? What more can be said?

As long as this particular situation is not resolved, it will be a topic of conversation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...