goodell admits 'i didn't get it right'

There are mandatory arrest policies. They exist. It means that when the police show up at the house, they must arrest somebody. That's predetermined by the fact that they show up. I don't like it either. But it is fact.

 

In practice, police do not leave the house without arresting someone. This is what Baron said. This is what Fatsis' book said. This is what happens.

It's the truth. As to the trumping of the Fourth Amendment, I think we can agree there are probably quite a few cases that a libertarian would consider to be unreasonable searches and seizures -- such as, for instance, the government rifling through your email -- yet continue apace.

But now we're really off on a tangent.

 

Here's a New York Times op-ed from 2007:

TWO decades ago, in an effort to curb domestic violence, states began passing “mandatory arrest” laws. Police officers responding to a call for help would no longer need to determine whether one person was truly violent or out of control; every time someone reported abuse, the police would simply be required to make an arrest.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/opinion/07iyengar.html?_r=0

 

Paul Simon says hello

 

I guess the idea is that the accuser, who could be a third party (ex-girlfriend, disgruntled neighbor perhaps?) would be the person who made the phone call, and that the phone call would be the probable cause.

And with the league policy of punishment before conviction, coupled by the slowness of the justice system, all it would take is a couple of complaints in a short period of time for a player to be banned for life, possibly without even a conviction.

 

So she didn't write that op-ed for the New York Times that plainly characterized the policy as an arrest being made every time someone reported abuse? Weird.

In real life application, the police arrest someone every time there is an accusation or even a call. There is a whole cottage industry of writing about what a bad idea this law is, most of it coming from the cops and from people who advocate for the victims of domestic violence.

It is possible that things happen in the world without you being sufficiently aware to author a 2,000-word opinion about them.

 

Yeah, you're right, and everyone in the field who has written about it over the last 20 years is wrong. Always the way.

Your belief that the Fourth Amendment is sacrosanct is cute.

 

It has been pointed out that this is not true.

Now, the accused may have the charges dismissed once the lack of evidence arises, but that takes time. Imagine someone who already has a strike against them gets accused again during the season.
Are they permanently banned? Can they appeal? Can they play pending the resolution of the charges? Will there be screaming about how unfair it is for the accused to keep playing?