Bears Cut Ray McDonald after Arrest on DV Charges

[ToGoGo]

which, if, someone wanted to be a real jerk and set a player up -- would probably be a huge "pro" when contemplating if they should choose a guy like RM.

 

again, not arguing its what happened, simply that hes likely both an idiot that did this, but also a potentially extra prone target for extracurricular drama.

 

I remember there's a Pacman Jones video on the web from a few years ago where he's calmly hanging out on a patio at a bar and a bunch of drunk people start trying to fight him for no real reason.

 

If you've ever hung out at a bar with a pro boxer or UFC guy, you know they are a magnet for tough guys who have something to prove. There's plenty of shady women out there who are looking for a handout. That's why I think every situation should be looked at with caution before judging.

[NoSaint]

 

I remember there's a Pacman Jones video on the web from a few years ago where he's calmly hanging out on a patio at a bar and a bunch of drunk people start trying to fight him for no real reason.

 

If you've ever hung out at a bar with a pro boxer or UFC guy, you know they are a magnet for tough guys who have something to prove. There's plenty of shady women out there who are looking for a handout. That's why I think every situation should be looked at with caution before judging.

he should still know better than to be around someone thats done it to him before, if you want to believe she was making both incidents up.

 

theres really no way he comes out of this looking like a smart guy to take a risk on.

[ToGoGo]

he should still know better than to be around someone thats done it to him before, if you want to believe she was making both incidents up.

 

theres really no way he comes out of this looking like a smart guy to take a risk on.

 

Again, I understand. And I know full well how many normally well-intentioned people put themselves in stupid situations over and over again. I see it all the time.

 

But beating someone and putting yourself in a situation to be accused of beating someone are two very different things. As an employer, I don't care because I'm not an employer. But as a person, I'd like to know which one of the two he is.

[DC Greg]

Good. NFL should follow suit and ban him. There should be zero tolerance for DV in the NFL anymore. Plus he had prior incidents.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

 

Again, I understand. But I'm not his employer. And at the end of the day, the truth is more important than caveats and contracts. At least in my opinion. Perhaps he's a serial wife-beater, but I just really don't like this rush for judgement before literally any details have come out.

 

Understood and I respect that. My point is solely that if the Bears laid down terms of employment, they have every right to yank the employment back the instant it seems he violates the terms.

[ToGoGo]

 

Understood and I respect that. My point is solely that if the Bears laid down terms of employment, they have every right to yank the employment back the instant it seems he violates the terms.

 

And I agree with that. I guess what I'm getting at, is that I believe the main reason the Bears have this caveat in the first place, is because of the public's rush to judgement. It's very circular.

 

1. Ray McDonald is accused of crime for the 2nd or 3rd time and may or may not be guilty.

2. Bears quickly cut him fearing public backlash

3. Public backlash

4. Details come out

 

#4 should be #2, in my opinion. And if #3 only happened after the details came out, then the Bears wouldn't have cut him so quickly.

Edited May 26, 2015 by musichunch

[Mr. WEO]

to be fair, it was probably a lot less prosperous when the league wasnt doling out suspensions that are potentially 7 (or 8!) figure fines without enough evidence for a conviction.

 

not that im thinking its the case here, but that is a new variable in the recent past.

 

My point was that the poster's claim that he could "easily" be a "magnet" for false accusations is pretty hard to believe. History doesn't support this.

[NoSaint]

 

And I agree with that. I guess what I'm getting at, is that I believe the main reason the Bears have this caveat in the first place, is because of the public's rush to judgement. It's very circular.

 

1. Ray McDonald is accused of crime for the 2nd or 3rd time and may or may not be guilty.

2. Bears quickly cut him fearing public backlash

3. Public backlash

4. Details come out

 

#4 should be #2, in my opinion. And if #3 only happened after the details came out, then the Bears wouldn't have cut him so quickly.

The current cycle has bad news written all over it. McDonald is a tough person to stake that argument alongside but on a broad level it has potential to turn ugly for an innocent guy.

[SJDK]

I just sold my town house around the corner from the 'willow den' (where he was partying). That place is the worst bar in the Bay Area, I've only been twice but it's the bar where the trash flock to for sure. Tells me a lot that he was there when a couple nice places are just down the street. Like most people who hang out there, I'm sure he will be in jail soon. On the flip-side... If you want some ideas for neck tats this is your bar

[ToGoGo]

 

My point was that the poster's claim that he could "easily" be a "magnet" for false accusations is pretty hard to believe. History doesn't support this.

 

I just gave you a couple examples. You don't need to go far to find false rape and domestic violence accusations. They exist. How prevalent is a good question.

 

It's not so much "hard to believe" as it is hard for you to believe.

[ToGoGo]

 

OK, this helps. I see the sequence differently.

 

1. Bears sign 3x DV/SA accused player Ray McDonald with the caveat "keep your nose clean and avoid future trouble"

2. Ray McDonald promptly returns to the same trouble in the wee hours

3. Bears say "what part of keep your nose clean and avoid trouble didn't you understand? Good-bye!"

4. Details beyond "he was there at 3 in the morning and there was some kind of dispute" don't matter.

 

But that's just me - at least we figure out where we agree to disagree.

 

Fair enough.

[billsfan89]

It was a 1 yr, $1.05M deal with no SB or guarantees. The Bears lose nothing by cutting him.

 

They were hoping he would help out their D-line. But they knew the risks when they signed him, that explains the salary being low with no guarantee. The Bears knew this would have to be the move if it blew up when they signed him. With him being a repeat offender in a short amount of time he isn't going to get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to this. Let the legal process play out, if he gets cleared he is free to join another team.

[Mr. WEO]

 

I just gave you a couple examples. You don't need to go far to find false rape and domestic violence accusations. They exist. How prevalent is a good question.

 

It's not so much "hard to believe" as it is hard for you to believe.

 

 

Of course false accusations happen--and it is possible that it occured here.

 

But you said in this case, it's easy to believe that this is happening to this guy--that in fact he is some sort of magnet for false claims. Your 2 examples of it happening in sports can't make a strong argument to jump to the position that this is happening specifically to McDonald. You gave no evidence to convince anyone else that it's "easy" to believe it's happening here.

[Momma Pecoraro]

Free Lawrence Philips!

[Ted William's frozen head]

dallas

Raiders.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Raiders.

 

Browns?

[3rdand12]

Raiders.

Cowboys

[OCinBuffalo]

 

Wouldn't that actually make it harder? I mean, I think it's far-fetched to think that sports stars are "magnets" for this - magnets for groupies lobbying for the traditional jewelry and valuata, sure. But previously, when a conviction was needed to cause an impact, I could (theoretically) see a sequence by alleged extortionist chick:

1) provoke DV altercation

2) call 911/go to hospital to report assault

3) file charges that can't be sustained without your testimony

4) make it clear to his lawyer that you'll disappear and take your testimony with you if you get paid

5) get paid and disappear

 

Now that teams fearing bad PR/suspension of key players during a playoff run, are primed to kick players to the curb without evidence to convict, steps 1-3) risk losing the paycheck the (alleged) extortionist chick is (allegedly) trying to collect, so wouldn't it actually be harder, not easier?

This all assumes the woman in question is smart, and can therefore think through your point: that it is now harder to run this con.

 

If a woman is smart, and not a criminal, then why does she need to do any of this? She can make her own way, and most people are proud to do just that. It's the dim ones who think schit like this up, because they have nothing else to do, no prospects, etc.

 

The dim ones will run 1-5, regardless of whether it is harder now, because they don't know that it is. What do they have to lose? It's no different than the people who play the lottery every day: that's the best plan for their money that they can conceive.

 

Thus, I would argue that it doesn't matter if it's harder: criminals and low-life women will do it anyway. It's just a lottery ticket, scratch it off and see what happens.

 

EDIT: And, I highly doubt allowing the media to try and convict is the kind of country we want. I get the pattern thing with this guy, but, I also get 2 other things: the Duke Lacrosse case, and, the click-whoring media of today. When is EJ due to be cut?

Edited May 27, 2015 by OCinBuffalo

[ToGoGo]

 

 

Of course false accusations happen--and it is possible that it occured here.

 

But you said in this case, it's easy to believe that this is happening to this guy--that in fact he is some sort of magnet for false claims. Your 2 examples of it happening in sports can't make a strong argument to jump to the position that this is happening specifically to McDonald. You gave no evidence to convince anyone else that it's "easy" to believe it's happening here.

 

I never, and you can look through my posts, said that it is easy to believe it is happening here. No reasonable person would say that. I don't know where you inferred that strawman from.

 

I have said that it is a reasonable possibility in cases such as this and should always be examined before passing judgement.

This all assumes the woman in question is smart, and can therefore think through your point: that it is now harder to run this con.

 

If a woman is smart, and not a criminal, then why does she need to do any of this? She can make her own way, and most people are proud to do just that. It's the dim ones who think schit like this up, because they have nothing else to do, no prospects, etc.

 

The dim ones will run 1-5, regardless of whether it is harder now, because they don't know that it is. What do they have to lose? It's no different than the people who play the lottery every day: that's the best plan for their money that they can conceive.

 

Thus, I would argue that it doesn't matter if it's harder: criminals and low-life women will do it anyway. It's just a lottery ticket, scratch it off and see what happens.

 

EDIT: And, I highly doubt allowing the media to try and convict is the kind of country we want. I get the pattern thing with this guy, but, I also get 2 other things: the Duke Lacrosse case, and, the click-whoring media of today. When is EJ due to be cut?

 

Something else people aren't taking into account. It's not always about money.

 

There are many messed up women out there who like to start sh*t on a night out to get their boyfriend to fight for them because it turns them on or they like to see their man stand up for them. There are also plenty of scorned women who would enjoy seeing their SO in trouble with the law if they were angry at them for cheating, for example. It could be a payback type situation. Everything should be examined before ruining a man's life, livelihood, and reputation.

Edited May 27, 2015 by musichunch

[Mr. WEO]

 

I never, and you can look through my posts, said that it is easy to believe it is happening here. No reasonable person would say that. I don't know where you inferred that strawman from.

 

I have said that it is a reasonable possibility in cases such as this and should always be examined before passing judgement.

 

Something else people aren't taking into account. It's not always about money.

 

There are many messed up women out there who like to start sh*t on a night out to get their boyfriend to fight for them because it turns them on or they like to see their man stand up for them. There are also plenty of scorned women who would enjoy seeing their SO in trouble with the law if they were angry at them for cheating, for example. It could be a payback type situation. Everything should be examined before ruining a man's life, livelihood, and reputation.

 

Yes you did. You said it was "just as easily" to believe that he is a magnet for these allegations than that he is guilty. You made that very clear.

 

Your issues with women seem significant. The possiblity that he is a magnet for women who ge "turned on" by "starting sh*t" hadn't occurred to em. Good pick up.