goodell admits 'i didn't get it right'

[3_Octave_Fart]

I have wondered that about Rice.

 

[The Big Ragu]

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.

I posted that any arrest without a warrant -- even in the case of domestic abuse, which has those stringent mandatory arrest laws -- requires the most basic thing: probable cause of a crime.

You kept challenging that. I have no idea why. My post should have gotten a nod, and then back to the thread.

First you responded with: "Nope. That's a pretty standard provision of the law now -- all domestic calls must end with an arrest. According to this link, it's the law in 21 states."

Stating that any domestic call MUST end with an arrest is just ridiculous. As I said, if I call the police on you, they can't legally arrest you without probable cause of a crime. And the link you gave me? It had snippets from all of the statutes stating that the police must make an arrest IF THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE. Which was all I said.

So I responded to you. You then posted about what I like, or something like that, and again posted, "When the police show up at someone's house they MUST make an arrest."

I again stated, "They legally need probable cause of a crime to make an arrest."

And so on and so on.

Why were you so hell bent on challenging the fact that even in cases of domestic abuse, for which police are arrest happy, they need probable cause of a crime to make an arrest?

It's not as simple as, "If I make a phone call to draw the police to your house, they HAVE to arrest you." You insisted on that twice.

 

[LongTimeListener]

OK.

Just see if that's how the law is applied. Anyone in the field will tell you it isn't.

Or write 5,000 words about how it applies to the price of gold and the euro. I don't give a ****.

 

[DeskMonkey1]

I can assure you that police are not obligated to make an arrest if they are called out. I know this first hand because in a suburb of the city I used to live in, these two neighbors called the cops on each other about twice a week, alleging something, a lot of time domestic. The cops were obligated to show up but not to haul anyone in.

(and before anyone says something, yes, they were abusing the system. I know it, you know it, the cops knew it. But, they were able to find enough loopholes ("I heard a sound!") and they always called directly to the station, not 911 that they couldn't be arrested for abusing 911.

Last I spoke to someone there, the department was just waiting for one side to screw up so they could drop the hammer.

Now, I do know from talking to police that while it isn't officially mandated, the probably cause in a domestic is less than another call. "Hey, she's got a scratch, sir. We have to haul you in just in case you were responsible for her scratch."

That happened to my dad. My stepmother beat the holy hell out of him but he was arrested because he broke her nose defending himself. Turned out she was the one ultimately charged.

 

[DeskMonkey1]

I applaud the rule but to play devil's advocate...

what has to happen for it to qualify as domestic violence? What if it's a shouting match that gets out of control but not to a point where police have to make an arrest. Or, they do make an arrest, but only out of safety and the prosecutor declines to prosecute.

What if it's self-defense?

What if it's he-said, she-said?

Or, (this isn't likely), the prosecutor doesn't prosecute because (s)he is a fan of the local team.

What if after the suspension it turns out it was false allegations?

Or, what if Player A shoves his wife when she's beating on him (see my self-defense question) and it's his second offense. But, Player B nearly kills his wife in a domestic violence incidence. Is Player A gone for life while Player B is only gone six games (on top of what he misses for legal reasons)?

Better yet, if Player A assaults his wife and Player B assaults a girl at a club, will they both face the same punishment?

And does it have to be against a spouse or girlfriend/boyfriend? What if it's a parent? Or sibling? Or child?

There's precedence that the burden of proof is less in the NFL than in a court room. Big Ben, for instance, was never convicted (or even charged, if I remember correctly) but was still suspended. Aldon Smith wasn't charged in the bomb threat incident but we all expect him to be suspended.

I applaud the lifetime ban but at the same time, such a rigid punishment always chills me when things aren't always black and white.

 

[poindexter]

So did that stooge NFL head they trotted out that week also give an apology?

That was the most awkward 10 min or so I've ever heard on the Mike & Mike show, and that's saying something.

Adolpho Birch was that numbnut's name.

 

[Riptide]

"Adolpho was OK at first, but then he went too far." – Marge Schott.

 

[Double Down]

Best part a about that Birch interview was when Mike Golic asked some theoretical question about how the league might handle a future DV case and Birch laughed. He laughed! In an interview about domestic violence! It was a master class in stupidity.

As much of a d-bag as Ray Rice is, it's interesting that this rule will likely go down as the Ray Rice Rule while Greg Hardy seems like a much bigger psychopath (choking and threatening to kill his girlfriend on an arsenal of guns), and is currently a much better player, has apologized zero times, and seems like he's not part of the discussion at all. How fortunate for him his girlfriend wasn't wearing a GoPro I guess.

 

[Mr. Sunshine]

Best part a about that Birch interview was when Mike Golic asked some theoretical question about how the league might handle a future DV case and Birch laughed. He laughed! In an interview about domestic violence! It was a master class in stupidity.

As much of a d-bag as Ray Rice is, it's interesting that this rule will likely go down as the Ray Rice Rule while Greg Hardy seems like a much bigger psychopath (choking and threatening to kill his girlfriend on an arsenal of guns), and is currently a much better player, has apologized zero times, and seems like he's not part of the discussion at all. How fortunate for him his girlfriend wasn't wearing a GoPro I guess.

Hardy is the first person I thought of when this was announced on the radio.

 

[Double Down]

Judging from the story I read it seems possible Hardy will be able to play this whole season while he appeals his case. (He's already been convicted in a bench trial but has the right to appeal and have a jury trial.)