Kareem Hunt being investigated for 2nd incident

[StHustle]

2 hours ago, Gugny said:

 

 

Shirley, you see the irony, here.

There is a difference between making a statement on something and holding a discussion about it. You know the can of worms it opens, and at the end, no ones views will be changed.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

On 12/2/2018 at 3:28 PM, The Senator said:

 

For the Hunt apologists, who think HE is the victim....

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/12/02/report-nfl-investigating-second-incident-in-which-kareem-hunt-punched-a-man/

 

https://nesn.com/2018/12/nfl-rumors-nfl-investigating-incident-in-which-kareem-hunt-punched-man-in-face/

 

Clearly, this thug is a violent criminal.  I’m sure, as we peel back the onion, more incidents of violence against both men and women will surface.

 

Dude’s cooked.  His NFL career is over.

 

(JMO)

 

*raises eyebrows* every young guy who drinks to excess and uses his fists under the influence a "violent criminal"?

 

I think the guy has probably has anger management issues compounded by a drinking problem.

 

I think that's probably not uncommon for a number of young guys and while it ain't right, it doesn't make him a violent criminal or a thug.  Or at least, if it does, you need to come up with new words for Aaron Hernandez.

[boyst]

42 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I have a different perspective, perhaps stemming from different employer experience.  I worked for an employer with a very strict employee code of conduct.

I knew it when I took the job.  They put it in front of me and I had to initial about 5 places and sign at the end, witnessed.

It had nothing to do with charges and conviction and everything to do with the company's image and protecting it.  I had no right to "due process" because it wasn't a legal proceeding.  The NFL is NOT an acting body in a legal issue.  They are "protecting their brand" and image.  It's about the right to be employed by an NFL team, not a constitutional guarantee of life and liberty. 

 

The freedoms afforded by the constitution do not include the freedoms to work for a specific employer no matter what you do or how you behave.  I didn't have that freedom when I worked for my former employer.  Many people don't.  It's life in the world of business.  I indulged in conduct prohibited by the agreement I freely signed, they would have the right to can my ass.

The players who negotiated the CBA agreed to the conduct clause.  They have a legal right to negotiate changes with the next CBA.  But they agreed.  They signed on behalf of the players they represent.   If Hunt consults lawyers, hopefully they would advise him of same and not waste the money he so far earned from his NFL career.

 

 

The view I have is arbitrary on this. The NFL's image is smoke and mirrors and hypocritical. The fake image they have is not strong and I think often times they try to present an image that just ain't them. Their legal rights under the CBA should be challenged, IMO, because I hate collective bargaining and unions thinking they're downright unamerican.

40 minutes ago, SWATeam said:

People tend to confuse legal rights with rights as an employee.  You don't need to be arrested to be terminated from your job.  Like they always say, playing in the NFL is a privilege not a right. 

I'm not doing this. Promise. I just want the NFL challenged and the NFLPA to do so so CBA and such rights are blown away similar to what happened with Janus.

 

 

40 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

https://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/photo/2017/08/11/0ap3000000828506.pdf

 

But even if the conduct does not result in a criminal conviction, players found to have engaged in any of the following conduct will be subject to discipline. Prohibited conduct includes but is not limited to the following:

 Actual or threatened physical violence against another person, including dating violence, domestic violence, child abuse, and other forms of family violence;

 Assault and/or battery, including sexual assault or other sex offenses;

 

I'm certain Mr. Hunt was aware of this policy.  The NFL has every right to discipline him.

See above. I want the NFLPA destroyed and the NFL to fall in line with honesty. They're just dirty. 

12 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Why do you think that the NFL is not legally responsible?  The players sign a legal contract that specifically prohibits conduct Hunt engaged in.

Nothing in the law precludes individuals or corporations from investigating something - they have a different status than law enforcement, but they are able to investigate.

 

Hunt says he lied to the Kansas City Chiefs.  Apparently representatives of the NFL league office themselves did not come and talk to Hunt, but left it to the team.

Again, as noted above: I think the individual needs to challenge the CBA and NFLPA first before the NFL to change such things.  I, too, am under the same situation as a salaried employee where my out of work presence can jeopardize my employment.  A DUI, for instance, could have me terminated. I'm thankfully in a right to work state, too.

 

But, for wrongful termination I could sue rightfully on a wrongful termination if I would be found innocent of the charges presented. hunt deserves a for this opportunity, as do all people 

[SWATeam]

1 minute ago, Boyst62 said:

 

 

But, for wrongful termination I could sue rightfully on a wrongful termination if I would be found innocent of the charges presented. hunt deserves a for this opportunity, as do all people 

Does Kaepernick?

[Cripple Creek]

3 hours ago, Boyst62 said:

Opinions vary and I'm not concerned with the viewpoint of anyone else in this world on the beliefs that I possess.

 

Your emotional connection to #feelings is exposed once again as it has always been prone to do going back to the Tennis video of almost 10 years ago to Brock the Standford swimmer; you jump at an emotional response without using any intellectual capacity to think critically.

 

So, while I may be thought of by you as an imbecile you fully display without prejudice that you lack the ability to think intellectually and compose logical thought.

 

Specifically: the consequences of Willie Nillie persecution style retaliation style retribution and punishment upon those who have not had a chance to be vetted, questioned and held up to investigation in their events/actions.  In this case you lack the ability hold respect for the law enforcement whom are tasked with the responsibilities of investigation - and I am fairly certain I can understand why you jump to this conclusion based on knowledge of you.  You believe the police let the guy skate because he is a star, it's not worth their time, etc.  It's not worth their time and how do I know that?  They said it.  I can accept that answer.  Why can't you? 

Lots of words amounting to nothing.

 

Why can’t I accept the inaction of the police?

 

Because they are paid to do a job and in this instance they failed miserably.

[StHustle]

13 minutes ago, SWATeam said:

Does Kaepernick?

His situation is totally different as there arent even any accusations of law breaking. Him getting blackballed is purely a business decision and one I cant say I disagree with. Kaep didn't get blackballed for what he did. There are actually plenty owners ok with it. He has been blackballed because of fan reaction to what he did. Had the general population gotten behind Kaep and rallied him on, he would be in the league today. That's the bottom line. I blame the fans for Kaep's situation. Not the league. That is why I can still watch the NFL with no issue.

[Gugny]

21 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

The view I have is arbitrary on this. The NFL's image is smoke and mirrors and hypocritical. The fake image they have is not strong and I think often times they try to present an image that just ain't them. Their legal rights under the CBA should be challenged, IMO, because I hate collective bargaining and unions thinking they're downright unamerican.

I'm not doing this. Promise. I just want the NFL challenged and the NFLPA to do so so CBA and such rights are blown away similar to what happened with Janus.

 

 

See above. I want the NFLPA destroyed and the NFL to fall in line with honesty. They're just dirty. 

Again, as noted above: I think the individual needs to challenge the CBA and NFLPA first before the NFL to change such things.  I, too, am under the same situation as a salaried employee where my out of work presence can jeopardize my employment.  A DUI, for instance, could have me terminated. I'm thankfully in a right to work state, too.

 

But, for wrongful termination I could sue rightfully on a wrongful termination if I would be found innocent of the charges presented. hunt deserves a for this opportunity, as do all people 

 

Most employers have conduct policies.  Hunt's employment by the NFL is a privilege.  It's not a right.  And he doesn't have the right to engage in poor conduct without fear of losing his job. 

 

Just like the rest of us.

 

This is from the code of conduct policy where I work:

 

Prohibited conduct includes, but is not limited to, the following:

• Threatening communication, including verbal, written or electronic, or threatening physical gestures;

• Physical injury or potential physical harm, i.e. - behavior that creates a reasonable fear of harm, to another individual;

 

Any employee acting contrary to this policy, including engaging in violence or threat of violence or being convicted of an offense involving the use of a weapon or crime of violence, will be subject to severe corrective action, up to and including, immediate separation from employment.

 

They're real life expectations for responsible adults who want to remain employed; whether it's at Walmart or the NFL.

[Doc]

1 hour ago, Gugny said:

No doubt she acted inappropriately.  It's just my opinion that, in this particular situation, she didn't deserve to be hit by a man.  It's not like he was in any kind of danger; she wasn't armed and she could barely even stand.

 

Again, it's a not a matter of "deserve;" it's "what did you think would happen?"  And he put his hands (and foot) on her but he didn't "hit" her.   Prior to seeing the video I thought it was going to be another Ray Rice.  After seeing it, I said"that's it?"

 

1 hour ago, SWATeam said:

This applies exactly to Hunt as well.

 

Yup.  Been saying all along that he was dumb for putting himself in that position and he got punished for it.

Edited December 4, 2018 by Doc

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, Boyst62 said:

The view I have is arbitrary on this. The NFL's image is smoke and mirrors and hypocritical. The fake image they have is not strong and I think often times they try to present an image that just ain't them. Their legal rights under the CBA should be challenged, IMO, because I hate collective bargaining and unions thinking they're downright unamerican.

I'm not doing this. Promise. I just want the NFL challenged and the NFLPA to do so so CBA and such rights are blown away similar to what happened with Janus.

 

See above. I want the NFLPA destroyed and the NFL to fall in line with honesty. They're just dirty. 

Again, as noted above: I think the individual needs to challenge the CBA and NFLPA first before the NFL to change such things.  I, too, am under the same situation as a salaried employee where my out of work presence can jeopardize my employment.  A DUI, for instance, could have me terminated. I'm thankfully in a right to work state, too.

 

But, for wrongful termination I could sue rightfully on a wrongful termination if I would be found innocent of the charges presented. hunt deserves a for this opportunity, as do all people 

 

OK, you want the NFLPA destroyed and the CBA challenged because you think unions are "unamerican" and the NFL is hypocritical.  Your views, and you have a right to them.

 

But recognize those are very different goals and based on a different premise than the position you appeared to be arguing and some of us were responding to.  You've gone from what seemed like asserting that the NFL has no standing to investigate: " the official group [ie law enforcement] that is legally responsible and the only body able to investigate the activity determined to do nothing." or that Hunt was not being afforded a chance to be questioned: " persecution style retaliation style retribution and punishment upon those who have not had a chance to be vetted, questioned and held up to investigation in their events/actions", to acknowledging that the NFL as the employer has legal rights to investigate and take action that Hunt and the NFLPA granted them.  You just don't like them or the collective bargaining process that conferred those rights.  Again, your right but a different view than you were expressing, and beyond the scope of football discussion to debate here.

 

Your last sentence is a bit incoherent to me, but if you sign an employment contract stating that you can be disciplined for prohibited conduct, including violence, assault, domestic violence etc and you're on film doing one or more of the above....I don't think you'd have grounds for a wrongful termination suit.

 

No one is ever found "innocent of the charges presented" in a court of law.  They are found "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" or "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal court and "more likely than not" in civil court. 

 

42 minutes ago, Cripple Creek said:

Lots of words amounting to nothing.

 

Why can’t I accept the inaction of the police?

 

Because they are paid to do a job and in this instance they failed miserably.

 

Or maybe the police didn't fail miserably.  Maybe they looked at the victim's injuries and spoke to her and decided she wasn't a credible witness and it didn't rise to a standard of legal proof the prosecutors they work with would press charges on. 

 

The point is the police and court systems are not the only organizations with standing here - the NFL, as Hunt's employer, also has standing to investigate and act which Hunt, through his employment contract and the CBA, have granted them.  And Hunt apparently lied to his team about his actions that night and is now caught "red footed" as it were, with conduct the CBA specifically calls out as subject to discipline.

 

Apparently Boyst hates unions and the NFLPA and the CBA.  Bully for Him, but currently, they are what they are and they grant the NFL standing here and specifically call out assault as conduct subject to discipline, regardless of legal charges.  Saying "well it shouldn't be that way" when it is, that's a way different point than arguing that the police/police charges ought to be the only ones investigating and their action/inaction should be accepted by all.

[The Senator]

4 hours ago, Gugny said:

 

I'm just curious .... did you ever go back?

?

[boyst]

2 hours ago, SWATeam said:

Does Kaepernick?

He has a right and he's using it.  He is suing the league.

 

Won't go anywhere, though, and totally different but he ahs a right.

2 hours ago, Cripple Creek said:

Lots of words amounting to nothing.

 

Why can’t I accept the inaction of the police?

 

Because they are paid to do a job and in this instance they failed miserably.

Typical response for you. Lazy, contemptuous, and lacking any type of merit to make a response worthwhile. Try harder.  Do better.

 

But to amuse you, as I have a laser pointer and you're the kitty:

 

Because it's not your right to accept them nor is it your right to not accept them. You do not live in that jurisdiction, do not elect those officials, do not oversee their laws and regulations...and even if you did, all you can do is vote for the #change you want.  You're perfectly fine to protest, to make signs, write your representatives, all of that.

 

But, your argument that they did not do their job is nothing that can be argued.  It's ridiculously silly to assert and you're smarter than that. Why do you think they didn't do their job? (Rhetorical, please, I don't see you able to successfully reply to that).

 

I'll pose the reply; it's easy.

 

"The police didn't do what I wanted them to do because "muh feelings.""

 

This would assume that the same argument police make to treat people unfairly in so many ways continues to show they'll go above and beyond to reverse course and let this guy walk because a woman was acting outrageous and he is a star.  Then the police followed up to prosecutors to have them say, "well, it's Kareem Hunt and it's just some bimbo."

 

That's the best you could have. It's silly.

 

2 hours ago, Gugny said:

 

Most employers have conduct policies.  Hunt's employment by the NFL is a privilege.  It's not a right.  And he doesn't have the right to engage in poor conduct without fear of losing his job. 

 

Just like the rest of us.

 

This is from the code of conduct policy where I work:

 

Prohibited conduct includes, but is not limited to, the following:

• Threatening communication, including verbal, written or electronic, or threatening physical gestures;

• Physical injury or potential physical harm, i.e. - behavior that creates a reasonable fear of harm, to another individual;

 

Any employee acting contrary to this policy, including engaging in violence or threat of violence or being convicted of an offense involving the use of a weapon or crime of violence, will be subject to severe corrective action, up to and including, immediate separation from employment.

 

They're real life expectations for responsible adults who want to remain employed; whether it's at Walmart or the NFL.

Yep, that's a lot of cases.  But, look at the NFL. Look at what's collectively bargained.

 

And further, what proof and burden of proof is used?  In those cases where you work at Walmart or your institution the police are involved when not at work in cases and they'll generally wait until there is at least a charge before termination.  There hasn't been a charge for Hunt because charges were declined by the "victims," so your point isn't that strong.

 

 

2 hours ago, StHustle said:

His situation is totally different as there arent even any accusations of law breaking. Him getting blackballed is purely a business decision and one I cant say I disagree with. Kaep didn't get blackballed for what he did. There are actually plenty owners ok with it. He has been blackballed because of fan reaction to what he did. Had the general population gotten behind Kaep and rallied him on, he would be in the league today. That's the bottom line. I blame the fans for Kaep's situation. Not the league. That is why I can still watch the NFL with no issue.

He's not blackballed if each team reached their individual assessment of his worth. Literally, if we need a QB how much do we pay $$ and how much do we lose with exposure?

 

Michael Vick did far worse than anyone in the league and still was able to come back. He did his time, served his punishment and contributed in a positive way to the team when given a chance for a basic af $$$.  

 

 

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

OK, you want the NFLPA destroyed and the CBA challenged because you think unions are "unamerican" and the NFL is hypocritical.  Your views, and you have a right to them.

 

But recognize those are very different goals and based on a different premise than the position you appeared to be arguing and some of us were responding to.  You've gone from what seemed like asserting that the NFL has no standing to investigate: " the official group [ie law enforcement] that is legally responsible and the only body able to investigate the activity determined to do nothing." or that Hunt was not being afforded a chance to be questioned: " persecution style retaliation style retribution and punishment upon those who have not had a chance to be vetted, questioned and held up to investigation in their events/actions", to acknowledging that the NFL as the employer has legal rights to investigate and take action that Hunt and the NFLPA granted them.  You just don't like them or the collective bargaining process that conferred those rights.  Again, your right but a different view than you were expressing, and beyond the scope of football discussion to debate here.

 

Your last sentence is a bit incoherent to me, but if you sign an employment contract stating that you can be disciplined for prohibited conduct, including violence, assault, domestic violence etc and you're on film doing one or more of the above....I don't think you'd have grounds for a wrongful termination suit.

 

No one is ever found "innocent of the charges presented" in a court of law.  They are found "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" or "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal court and "more likely than not" in civil court. 

 

 

Or maybe the police didn't fail miserably.  Maybe they looked at the victim's injuries and spoke to her and decided she wasn't a credible witness and it didn't rise to a standard of legal proof the prosecutors they work with would press charges on. 

 

The point is the police and court systems are not the only organizations with standing here - the NFL, as Hunt's employer, also has standing to investigate and act which Hunt, through his employment contract and the CBA, have granted them.  And Hunt apparently lied to his team about his actions that night and is now caught "red footed" as it were, with conduct the CBA specifically calls out as subject to discipline.

 

Apparently Boyst hates unions and the NFLPA and the CBA.  Bully for Him, but currently, they are what they are and they grant the NFL standing here and specifically call out assault as conduct subject to discipline, regardless of legal charges.  Saying "well it shouldn't be that way" when it is, that's a way different point than arguing that the police/police charges ought to be the only ones investigating and their action/inaction should be accepted by all.

Yes, and if Hunt has that much of an issue with the NFL he can take his talents elsewhere. But, there is a lot of gripes and concerns I have against the NFL. Most of them being they're major hypocrites and in bed with the government that allow them loopholes and dishonesty.  But, hunt chose his talents to the NFL and there is little else for him to capitalize on in a method that'd make him as much money.

 

The incoherence is due to being interrupted every 2 minutes with work.  ??‍♂️. We are on the same page but I think we need to establish a better society where convictions of guilt matter more than persecutions and allegations.  We need to entrust those who are professionally trained to do these things. The NFL most certainly has experts willing to do these tasks but also must protect their interests and weigh the discipline and merits of cause vs. the degradation of quality in their product.

[Gugny]

1 minute ago, Boyst62 said:

Yep, that's a lot of cases.  But, look at the NFL. Look at what's collectively bargained.

 

And further, what proof and burden of proof is used?  In those cases where you work at Walmart or your institution the police are involved when not at work in cases and they'll generally wait until there is at least a charge before termination.  There hasn't been a charge for Hunt because charges were declined by the "victims," so your point isn't that strong.

 

 

My point is rock solid.  Violating a conduct policy has absolutely nothing to do with being charged with a crime. 

 

Furthermore, when victims decline charges, that is not indicative of the accused not being guilty.  It's indicative of the accused having enough hush money.

[GoBills808]

Just now, Gugny said:

 

My point is rock solid.  Violating a conduct policy has absolutely nothing to do with being charged with a crime. 

 

Furthermore, when victims decline charges, that is not indicative of the accused not being guilty.  It's indicative of the accused having enough hush money.

Or simply the victim lacking the funds for a court case. It ain't cheap.

[boyst]

Just now, Gugny said:

 

My point is rock solid.  Violating a conduct policy has absolutely nothing to do with being charged with a crime. 

 

Furthermore, when victims decline charges, that is not indicative of the accused not being guilty.  It's indicative of the accused having enough hush money.

Legally it can and will be contested if the individual is smart.  Wrongful termination happens all the time.  But, saying in bold makes things more fact and if we say it enough it's true? Amirite?

 

Truth is, you're wrong.  Saying absolutely nothing is not accurate

 

Your second point is #feelings. #feelings aren't fact.  Try harder.  Do better.

 

 

0-2. :insert price is right loss tone:

 

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

Or simply the victim lacking the funds for a court case. It ain't cheap.

What daffy duck world do you live in that the victim pays the court costs?

[GoBills808]

3 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

What daffy duck world do you live in that the victim pays the court costs?

Attorney's fees, bruh. They don't work for free.

[Gugny]

9 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

Legally it can and will be contested if the individual is smart.  Wrongful termination happens all the time.  But, saying in bold makes things more fact and if we say it enough it's true? Amirite?

 

Truth is, you're wrong.  Saying absolutely nothing is not accurate

 

Your second point is #feelings. #feelings aren't fact.  Try harder.  Do better.

 

 

0-2. :insert price is right loss tone:

 

You're 100% wrong.  Again.  On both points.

 

Stop trying.

[Chicken Boo]

Yawn.

[boyst]

2 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

You're 100% wrong.  Again.  On both points.

 

Stop trying.

So present to me empirical facts that support that's what happened and happens in every case as you implied.

 

And present to me facts that one cannot legally contest wrongful termination for wrongful termination.

 

 

0-4

 

 

9 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Attorney's fees, bruh. They don't work for free.

Um... Again, whatever world you live in is not like the US structure, bruh.

 

If you press charges you do not hire an attorney. The state pays for the prosecution of the individual.

 

If this woman pressed charges against Hunt she would have the state represent her in court and Hunt would be able to either represent himself or hire an attorney.

 

Further, if she did and because this is a celebrity she would have someone like Michael Avenatti or Gloria Allred willing to provide representation pro Bono for exposure.

 

But, no, to file charges you do not need an attorney.  You do not need anything other than a police report which you sign off on after providing tour statement.  At that point the district attorney and prosecutor, etc does it all for free.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

6 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

Legally it can and will be contested if the individual is smart.  Wrongful termination happens all the time.  But, saying in bold makes things more fact and if we say it enough it's true? Amirite?

 

Truth is, you're wrong.  Saying absolutely nothing is not accurate

 

"Absolutely nothing" is not totally accurate - criminal charges would certainly be considered to impact an employer's conduct policy.

Perhaps  "no necessary connection" or "no required connection" would be a better choice of words.  (Bold used for usual reasons - for emphasis) Employer discipline for violation of their personal conduct policy does not, nor should it, require criminal charges, because it does not necessarily involve conduct which would be subject to criminal charges.  Example: my previous employer prohibited employees from talking to the media about anything involving the company. 

A young IT employee gave a radio interview about an active shooter situation on site vs. the mandated "I can't comment, please contact the PR department" and was fired.  A different employee gave a radio interview about an active shooter situation at his home address, not involving the company in any way or mentioning his employer, and was not disciplined.  Neither did anything in the least bit illegal.  One violated company policy, one did not.

 

Bringing this firmly back to the football relevant discussion at hand, Hunt has been caught on videotape engaging in behavior that would appear to be a pretty straightforward case of violating the NFL's conduct policy.  If he's smart, he'll say "yep, did it, made a mistake, compounded mistake by lying about it to team investigation, bad move, want to mend my ways and put this behind me"  Which sounds like just what he's doing.

"If the individual is smart" they can and will contest employer discipline?  The smart course for individuals who mess up and violate their employer's conduct policies is not necessarily to contest them in court.  It's to recognize that they screwed up and say so and move on, before they poison the well with every potential employer.

[row_33]

15 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

So present to me empirical facts that support that's what happened and happens in every case as you implied.

 

And present to me facts that one cannot legally contest wrongful termination for wrongful termination.

 

 

0-4

 

 

Um... Again, whatever world you live in is not like the US structure, bruh.

 

If you press charges you do not hire an attorney. The state pays for the prosecution of the individual.

 

If this woman pressed charges against Hunt she would have the state represent her in court and Hunt would be able to either represent himself or hire an attorney.

 

Further, if she did and because this is a celebrity she would have someone like Michael Avenatti or Gloria Allred willing to provide representation pro Bono for exposure.

 

But, no, to file charges you do not need an attorney.  You do not need anything other than a police report which you sign off on after providing tour statement.  At that point the district attorney and prosecutor, etc does it all for free.

 

it's a famous person with $$$, nothing applies to him as it would to non-famous non-rich people