Solid Crouse Angle On Bears/ Saints

There is a subtle art at doing these kind of stories. Like someone said, it's impossible to parachute in and judge a man's character in order to write a definitive profile.

Crouse is right to note the framed photographs of Johnson's daughters, and the orange roses.

But she is wrong to use these details to come to the conclusion that "there is a softer side to Johnson."

Two photographs and roses in a locker that a player knows will be viewed by the media does not serve as sufficient evidence of Johnson's soft side.

I think an empathetic, talented writer like Crouse could have brought a lot to this story by examining the paradox those photos represent: if the guy cares so much about his kids, why did he let them live in a hosue with automatic weapons and marijuana?

There's a story there. I'd guess Mr. Johnson is a 25-year-old guy who doesn't really know how to be a good parent.

Just because Johnson cares a lot about his kids doesn't mean he shouldn't be held accountable for endangering those kids.

They aren't mutually exclusive, yet Crouse makes it seem that way.

 

Wonderful... keep making excuses for this criminal.


"What's happened to me," Johnson says, "could have happened to any man."

BULLSHIT!



How about one simple question that does not seem to have been answered:
Tank, what the fuck do you need all those guns and all that ammo for?

Or maybe:
Tank, considering you were already on probation for a weapons charge, why do you still have all these unregistered weapons?

 

hey, she addressed it, spnited, my friend. she explained that tank is a gun-lover and now has to live in a world that will no longer let him go to a shooting range. poor baby!

yikes!!

 

Um, where is the criminal trial or plea bargain that clinches Tank Johnson being guilty of these things? Going into a story wanting to crucify someone is far worse than going into a story looking for a different side to someone.

 

How about going into the story and looking at both sides, instead of only the warm and fuzzy angle?

 

There's not a single fact about the legal case that she doesn't have in there. Sorry if she's not going into the story looking to do something no court in the recent case has done yet.

 

Also, don't you think a Chicago writer like Downey is a better judge of Tank Johnson than anyone judging this from afar, such as people here? His column and Crouse's story do not seem that different to me. How do you know, from the clear perspective of your living room, that Crouse didn't get this one right when you have a hometown writer painting pretty much the same picture? I have to think that if Tank had no redeeming qualities, Downey's column never would have seen print in that form.

 

I know frank and dooley..two people I usually agree with...will defend Karen to their death but what part of Tank Johnson's criminal record do you not understand:

"Johnson, who was on probation after pleading guilty to a gun possession charge in 2005"

If you are on probation from a plea bargain for a wea[pons offense and you are found to have a small arsenal and pot in your house, chances are your probation will be revoked and your sorry ass will be in jail.

THAT IS WHERE TANK JOHNSON BELONGS.

 

Link to the legal proceedings where he was found guilty of those two things, please.

 

So what are you saying, that we must portray the people we cover as one-dimensional? I interviewed Pete Rose a few times when he was playing. He was a pretty decent guy in that context. That does not mean I believed Pete Rose didn't bet on baseball, only that people who called him total scum were wrong about the "total" part. I think that's all Crouse and Downey were doing. What part of that don't you understand?

 

All I am saying is Tank Johnson violated his probation and deserves to be in jail, not on the football field.

If you want to ignore that fact while getting all warm and fuzzy over the criminal thug, go right ahead.

 

I'm guessing the link I was requesting indeed doesn't exist.