Certainly in cases were there is a pattern of abuse over time. If you do your time for a crime....then why should you be banned from working after that? Let the individual teams make that decision and take the risk.
but for DV, especially where a spouse or a kid is involved we should be mindful that a primarily financial punishment is going to hit them very hard as well. Doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do, it's just something to understand. It's easier to impose zero tolerance for sexual violence or even specific criminal acts like DUI than it is for domestic violence.
RE: I'm not sure I agree with an outright banning.
Certainly in cases were there is a pattern of abuse over time. If you do your time for a crime....then why should you be banned from working after that? Let the individual teams make that decision and take the risk.
Nobody is saying they can't work or that teams can't take their own risks. And how much time could they have done when we are talking about 21 year olds?
is it just the combine or the draft as well? This is only superficial kid does his one drills and boom...issue solved. This is only going to affect lower level players rds 4 thru 7...
I'd think a wider scope would be appropriate here, covering all violent felonies.
Well, probably because it's a bit easier to discriminate against these as opposed to those that could just be shitheads fighting at campus parties. There's really no instance where you can justify Sexual assault or DV, but regular assault can probably be filed under "boys will be boys". At a minimum, there's more gray area.
regular assault can *sometimes probably filed under
is it just the combine or the draft as well? This is only superficial kid does his does drills at a high school and boom...issue solved. This is only going to affect lower level players rds 4 thru 7...
Not one so severe that I was convicted of a felony, no
That's my point in distinguishing between simple assault, a misdemeanor, generally of the fistfight variety you're talking about, and aggravated assault, a felony which usually involves a weapon or at least a much more significant level of violence. I'm not an attorney, I can only speak in very general terms. Perhaps Dune can shed some light.
The idea that some violent crimes are excusable but others aren't makes no sense.
IDK, people expect twenty-something men to brawl outside bars with similarly sized, similarly aged men. They don't expect them to beat women and children a fraction their size. That distinction doesn't bother me all that much.
I thin Greg is talking about agrevated assult and the like.
is much more likely to commit some form of domestic violence down the line anyway. I also greatly dislike the notion that some victims are somehow deserving of greater protection under the law than others for nearly identical crimes.
this seems to go against the equal employment act.
In that you can not discriminate against individuals due to criminal history.
Says who? The vast majority of employers can and do discriminate against felons, and there are jobs that cannot be performed because of certain features of one's criminal history, most notably jobs that require the carrying of firearms.
RE: I thin Greg is talking about agrevated assult and the like.
I'm guessing the majority of jobs require a criminal background check. I'm in a tech related business and you can't work here if you've been convicted of a felony. I'm not sure what world you're living in.
That's my point in distinguishing between simple assault, a misdemeanor, generally of the fistfight variety you're talking about, and aggravated assault, a felony which usually involves a weapon or at least a much more significant level of violence. I'm not an attorney, I can only speak in very general terms. Perhaps Dune can shed some light.
usually a felony is either status-based (assaulting an LEO or committing a third domestic assault) or based on either the severity of the assault or the implement used (knife/firearm). I understand Greg's point, it is somewhat counterintuitive that putting hands on someone could bar participation but shooting someone or beating them so severely you get a felony conviction does not, the only distinction being that the person you assaulted is an intimate partner or a child.
According to that link it also includes weapons charges
Jerry Jones announced that the Dallas Cowboys would begin to host their own "alternative" scouting combine at Valley Ranch. Details of eligibility for this 2nd chance combine were not immediately disclosed but sources close to the Cowboys were able to confirm the facilities would include several stripper poles and a shooting range for automatic weapons. Cowboys PR department did confirm that NFL head of officiating Dean Blandino would be the guest of honor at the opening of the new 2nd chance combine facility.
Sorry if confusing
Jon : 9:33 am : link : reply
It's obviously meant as a deterrent. It's not hard. Just don't fucking do it.
Don't tell me what to do.
k. Sorry.
Nobody is saying they can't work or that teams can't take their own risks. And how much time could they have done when we are talking about 21 year olds?
Ray Rice, Greg Hardy, Jovan Belcher and plenty of others.
Well, probably because it's a bit easier to discriminate against these as opposed to those that could just be shitheads fighting at campus parties. There's really no instance where you can justify Sexual assault or DV, but regular assault can probably be filed under "boys will be boys". At a minimum, there's more gray area.
Just the combine. (They won't be invited to attend the draft, but they're not ineligible for the draft).
I think that's just the way society views it, right, wrong or indifferent.
You've never gotten in a fist fight with someone?
IDK, people expect twenty-something men to brawl outside bars with similarly sized, similarly aged men. They don't expect them to beat women and children a fraction their size. That distinction doesn't bother me all that much.
In that you can not discriminate against individuals due to criminal history.
In that you can not discriminate against individuals due to criminal history.
Says who? The vast majority of employers can and do discriminate against felons, and there are jobs that cannot be performed because of certain features of one's criminal history, most notably jobs that require the carrying of firearms.
I think that's fair, but it's something that impacts a very small number of people from year to year. As is this prohibition, I'm sure.
Now do employers do it yes but they do not openly say it is because of the criminal history ...
The policy includes misdemeanors.
Link - ( New Window )
Yeah that didn't make the headline but it's in the article.