Josh Brent and Jerry Brown

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
35,685
Reaction score
27,237
no, it certainly isn't. this is about criminal behavior, not morality.

If the league would implement a zero tolerance policy on criminal behavior, i would applaud. you can make those kinds of mistakes, get your life in order, and still live a nice life, just not a charmed life. Things life being an NFL athlete, president, Judge, etc, etc, have enough interest that we can staff those positions with people that are truly good role models.

You don't have to share my opinion, but you don't get to redefine puritanical while arguing against my opinion.

Redefine? The root of the word is pure. Normally it means pure interms of religious ideology so any deviation from the ideal is excluded. The word means strict adherence and exclusionary. Puritans exclude the impure.

Zero tolerance is puritanical. There is a difference between the adjective and noun. I never said Puritan.

Either way, as long as alcohol manufacturers are top sponsors and alcohol remains the top concession sold at stadiums, what you want is never going to happen.
 

dogberry

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,976
Reaction score
766
Brent is back.

How the NFL will treat social missteps will reveal the power of various pressure groups.

I am interested in seeing when Rice, Peterson, and Incognito/Pouncey/Jerry will be back.

Oh, Jerry is currently playing for the Giants, so that part of the question is answered.
 

Idgit

Fattening up
Staff member
Messages
58,971
Reaction score
60,826
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
I have a serious question, but I want to ask it delicately because I know there are people here who've been affected by drunk drivers and who feel very strongly about the topic: who do you guys bears more responsibility for Jerry Brown's death? Josh Brent, for becoming intoxicated and insisting on driving erratically and too fast, resulting in the fatal collision (note, I didn't say accident), or Jerry Brown himself, for not being over the intoxication limit, but allowing his intoxicated friend to drive, to drive at a high rate of speed, and to be in the car with him and not even wearing a seat belt?

For my part, while they both obviously bear responsibility, I think I've always leaned more towards Jerry Brown in this case. Mostly, because he's not wearing his belt, which was so foolhardy. But also because his judgement wasn't substance-impaired when he got in the vehicle, while Brent's was. Granted, impaired judgement is not excuse for Josh Brent, and it's also the case that there was a point before impairment when he made the choice to drink too much when he knew he was likely going to be driving home that night, so there's plenty of responsibility to go around.

But for my part, and this goes for any of us, if you're sober, and you're getting into a car with a drunk driver, and you also choose not to wear your safety belt, you're taking a really unnecessary and serious risk with your life. If both of these two guys were just wearing their belts (neither one of them were), this might be a very different, and happier story.
 

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
35,685
Reaction score
27,237
If he does ........ it will not be because he has earned it ....... deal with that.

You don't have any clue how he is going to perform. He was slightly over his playing weight and by all accounts looks to be in very good shape.

If he plays poorly and takes someone's spot that was playing better then you will have a point but you are only blustering certainty that will be the case.
 
Top