Packers linebacker Barnett arrested for battery

[ABQCOWBOY]

And no one got shot.

I take every one of these incidents as a sign Goodell is right on the money....

I can live with a plain old fight where no one brandishes weapons or gets shot.
But it's still to the point where these guys have to be aware they are targets for lawsuits.

I really dislike the Eagles/Skins.

If I was drunk at a bar and saw Buddy Ryan I am sure the old geezer would try to punch me because he like not a bit what I'd have to say to him.

Your probably right. That guy was a pain in the rear way back when, I doubt he's changed a bit. Always hated that guy. He's like top 5, still, for me on my most hated list.

 

[Maxmadden]

If your out at a bar at 2:00 am inthe morning the odds of "something" going wrong go way up. It doesn't really matter if you act appropriately, sooner or later the odds are going to catch up with you in some form or fashion.

So go and enjoy, but be aware the odds are against you.

 

[jterrell]

I agree with both of you and Doomsday101...both have valid opinions.

As long as you act accordingly, you will be fine. If you think you are invincible after drinking alot, or if you hang with the wrong crowd or are a celebrity that people recognize...you could be asking for trouble.

Actually, a few year back when I was not married, I asked this girl that I met at a club out on a date. I called her and asked where she would like to go tonight and she said, "Let's go to Northern Exposure"! (strip club)

I said, "What"??

She said, "Let's go watch the dancers..."! And, it was on!! We had no problems at all...but, there were some rowdy guys there, but nothing that we got into with them, just stayed to ourselves, drank, watched the strippers...then went home and....

Anyway, we dated for 4 or 5 months, and that's all she wanted to do. She eventually moved to California....

So, you can have it both ways. It's just up to the individual on how you want to act in public. Act like a jackfool...trouble will find you. Act like a decent human being...you will be fine.

Most of the men and maybe 1/4th of the women on this board have been to a strip club I'd guess.


And I'd guess most of them understood they'd be surrounded by less than savory characters and there would be some exposure to the criminal element.

In college I had friends who were strippers. They weren't bad people at all and I never got into trouble hanging out with them or going to a club... but they did have drama in their lives and did know plenty of unsavory folks.

I was off to school and the friends were still back here; thus preventing my regular attendance at the clubs. Also preventing me from getting into trouble.

Odds are funny things but they do catch up to you.
What I think I know regarding Pacman is that he is routinely going to places where risks of trouble are somewhat high. He is going with friends who are ready to commit acts of violence.

I did plenty of dumb things as a younger man and an not immune to doing so now, but I generally can see when something was dumb and refrain from repeating that mistake. I can certainly refrain from repeating it every weekend.

 

[superpunk]

Come on SP. Give it some time. Plus the policy isn't solely about being a a deterrent. It will deter some, but the ones it doesn't will just be suspended and out of the league if they don't straighten up.

I would think that largely the aim of the program is to be a deterrent.

I think that deterrents are more effective when the punitive side is clearly outlined.

I think if it doesn't serve as a deterrent, nothing has really been accomplished. You'll forgive the hyperbole, but I think you can see what I'm driving at by your response. If it's not a deterrent, is it really "working"? Maybe if Barnett knew, flat out, that this scenario would land him an automatic 8-gamer, he'd have avoided it.

As it stands currently, is there any way for Barnett to have any idea what punishment he might face for such an incident?

Is that fair?

How can it possibly serve as a deterrent if noone knows what the punishment will be?

More time is needed to judge it's effectiveness, but inconsistencies are already there. Vick's career has been riddled with conduct detrimental to the league's image, from Mexico to pot to flipping off the fans. Here he is in the middle of an investigation that certainly looks damning - has anything happened? Clearly a conviction is not necessary for suspension, doesn't it seem to you that in line with previous punishments, (keeping in mind also that evidence against PacMan is dwindling from Las Vegas) Vick should already be suspended? Maybe they're just weighing things right now - based on what we know (and what else can we base it on) I certainly feel precedent has been set for vick to be suspended at least 8 games, if not significantly more.

But we've got no way of knowing, do we?

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

I think the thing that some seem to miss is that you can be an idiot and go to strip clubs and get attention. Or you can be someone that does not cause trouble, go to a strip club and not receive attention of a negative manner.

That is for an average Joe. They have the ability to go and enjoy themselves without causing trouble or drawing attention to themselves.

However if you are a famous sports star, chances are even if you are being good and not trying to cause trouble, someone is going to try and start trouble with you or flat out lie later because they know they have loads of money.

So it is quite different for some guy on a message board, who is not a sports star or someone famous, to go in and just blend in and enjoy themselves as opposed to some famous person that people will know as seen as they walk into the club.

That does not even take into any of the players that do not know how to contain themselves and act a fool because they have money and have never been punished since they have become sports stars.

 

[5Stars]

Most of the men and maybe 1/4th of the women on this board have been to a strip club I'd guess.


And I'd guess most of them understood they'd be surrounded by less than savory characters and there would be some exposure to the criminal element.

In college I had friends who were strippers. They weren't bad people at all and I never got into trouble hanging out with them or going to a club... but they did have drama in their lives and did know plenty of unsavory folks.

I was off to school and the friends were still back here; thus preventing my regular attendance at the clubs. Also preventing me from getting into trouble.

Odds are funny things but they do catch up to you.
What I think I know regarding Pacman is that he is routinely going to places where risks of trouble are somewhat high. He is going with friends who are ready to commit acts of violence.

I did plenty of dumb things as a younger man and an not immune to doing so now, but I generally can see when something was dumb and refrain from repeating that mistake. I can certainly refrain from repeating it every weekend.

I totally agree with what you just wrote...totally!

Sometimes it just takes one's own bad experience to really know what it means to do right or wrong. You can tell someone to not go down a road that you have gone because bad stuff happens....yet, lots of times they won't listen, then they go down that road and .... BAM! Bad stuff, man! "I wish I would have listened..."!

 

[joseephuss]

I would think that largely the aim of the program is to be a deterrent.

I think that deterrents are more effective when the punitive side is clearly outlined.

I think if it doesn't serve as a deterrent, nothing has really been accomplished. You'll forgive the hyperbole, but I think you can see what I'm driving at by your response. If it's not a deterrent, is it really "working"? Maybe if Barnett knew, flat out, that this scenario would land him an automatic 8-gamer, he'd have avoided it.

As it stands currently, is there any way for Barnett to have any idea what punishment he might face for such an incident?

Is that fair?

How can it possibly serve as a deterrent if noone knows what the punishment will be?

More time is needed to judge it's effectiveness, but inconsistencies are already there. Vick's career has been riddled with conduct detrimental to the league's image, from Mexico to pot to flipping off the fans. Here he is in the middle of an investigation that certainly looks damning - has anything happened? Clearly a conviction is not necessary for suspension, doesn't it seem to you that in line with previous punishments, (keeping in mind also that evidence against PacMan is dwindling from Las Vegas) Vick should already be suspended? Maybe they're just weighing things right now - based on what we know (and what else can we base it on) I certainly feel precedent has been set for vick to be suspended at least 8 games, if not significantly more.

But we've got no way of knowing, do we?

I don't think that is necessarily true.

Henry was found guilty in two cases. He actually pled guilty. That was enough to get him his suspension. He got 8 games. He had two pending cases. He was not going to get any more time if found guilty in those pending cases. He just has to follow the courts decision whether guilty or innocent and it will stay at 8 games. If the court said he had to go to counseling or jail and he failed to do that, then he may get more games. As long he follows the courts order he knows the extent of his NFL punishment.

Tank Johnson was found guilty in his case and convicted. He got 8 games.

Pacman is the one exception. But is it really an exception? He broke a specific NFL rule. He isn't being suspended for being found guilty in a case, he is being suspended for that specific rule. That rule does not rely on guilt in the court of law. He did not report his two arrests. Is it right that the commissioner has that right? Must be because he got that power as part of the collective bargaining agreement. So it is his right as far as the NFLPA and owners are concerned.

Pacman got 10 games based on his two failures to report arrests. It may turn into a year depending on his pending cases. Those pending cases may turn it into a 16 game suspension. Depends on if he is found guilty and at what level of guilt in the eyes of the court. The Las Vegas incident is not considered a pending case.

Seems like everything was clearly defined by the commissioner. This is what you did and this is how much you are being punished even considering the pending cases.

I think there is enough precedent for Vick to get 8 games if he is ever convicted of the dog fighting. Right now he has not been. Not only has he has not been found guilty, he has not even had charges brought against him in any cases. He was fined for flipping the crowd off. His water bottle incident was never made any type of case. The dog fighting is huge, but it is still too early to tell anything.

Sure you would hope that you can deter guys from off the field incidents. Still not going to get to everyone. There is always going to be a few knuckleheads that won't learn.

 

[superpunk]

Pacman got 10 games based on his two failures to report arrests. It may turn into a year depending on his pending cases. Those pending cases may turn it into a 16 game suspension. Depends on if he is found guilty and at what level of guilt in the eyes of the court. The Las Vegas incident is not considered a pending case.

Unless I'm off base, it's 16 games with a possibility for 10, not the other way around.

Either way, it's the harshest of the three.

Is failure to report two arrests really worse than Henry and Johnson's offenses? As yet, Jones has been convicted of nothing that I know of. I can't follow this logic.

Seems like everything was clearly defined by the commissioner. This is what you did and this is how much you are being punished even considering the pending cases.

Clearly defined....after the fact? Pac Man's being suspended for things that didn't occur under Goodell's tenure? I don't see, and maybe I just don't understand enough, how all of this is fair. The punishment's are not clear, they don't seem to jive with each other, and it's not exactly clear what exactly these suspensions are ultimately for. The chief purpose of pnishment is to serve as a deterrent. If the brand new harsh penalties, which aren't outlined anywhere save the commissioner's discretion, don't serve as a deterrent, are they doing any good?

If precedent is thrown out, and it's a new day, and the justification is that the ends justify the means - what justification is there if there are no "ends" per se?

I think a clearly defined policy with clear, unyielding punishments would be far more effective than the current discretionary policy - which is difficult to comprehend and predict.

 

[joseephuss]

Unless I'm off base, it's 16 games with a possibility for 10, not the other way around.

Is the glass half full or half empty?
It is dependent on how his pending cases turn out. I would imagine that Goodell has a good idea on how his pending cases may turn out bases on his own research and talking to Pacman and Pacman's lawyers. Same with Henry's pending cases. Goodell probably knows the possible outcomes ranging from no punishment in the courts, a light probation, 10 years in prison or whatever. I don't think any result that comes back is going to catch him or Pacman's attorneys off guard.

Either way, it's the harshest of the three.

Is failure to report two arrests really worse than Henry and Johnson's offenses? As yet, Jones has been convicted of nothing that I know of. I can't follow this logic.


Clearly defined....after the fact? Pac Man's being suspended for things that didn't occur under Goodell's tenure? I don't see, and maybe I just don't understand enough, how all of this is fair. The punishment's are not clear, they don't seem to jive with each other, and it's not exactly clear what exactly these suspensions are ultimately for. The chief purpose of pnishment is to serve as a deterrent. If the brand new harsh penalties, which aren't outlined anywhere save the commissioner's discretion, don't serve as a deterrent, are they doing any good?

If precedent is thrown out, and it's a new day, and the justification is that the ends justify the means - what justification is there if there are no "ends" per se?

I think a clearly defined policy with clear, unyielding punishments would be far more effective than the current discretionary policy - which is difficult to comprehend and predict.

Just how clear can you define these penalties? Some of these offenses exist in our everyday world and do we know the extent of those punishments. If you robbed a liquor store on one side of town and I robbed one on the other, do we both know the extent of our possible punishments. I bet they would be different. Not that I would get caught or anything.

No, Pacman isn't being suspended for stuff that happened just under his tenure. What is he supposed to do? Does everyone get a clean slate just because there is a new commissioner? Some things take time to figure out. Just like Vick. It will take some time to sort through that whole mess. I know some people will be frustrated that Vick doesn't miss time this season, but it probably will take until next year before there is a resolution. What if Goodell retired before then? Would the next commissioner have no say in the matter? It is the office of the commissioner, not just the person in the office. Although, the two failure to report arrests came to the forefront once Goodell was in charge. The arrests happened prior. Nice little crossover there.

 

[superpunk]

Is the glass half full or half empty?

There is no glass.

http://i32.***BLOCKED***/albums/d2/superpunk2884/jawschum.gif

yeah...irrelevent. ^^^

Just how clear can you define these penalties? Some of these offenses exist in our everyday world and do we know the extent of those punishments. If you robbed a liquor store on one side of town and I robbed one on the other, do we both know the extent of our possible punishments. I bet they would be different. Not that I would get caught or anything.

Cuz you're fly like that.

They could at least attempt. Run ins with the law could be 4 games for a first time offense. Misdemeanors carry a certain penalty. Felonies something different. I don't think it's impossible, or even that difficult. The grey areas could fall under commissioner's discretion, as every possible scenario cannot be planned for. That would certainly be better than the current system, where all punsihments are Goodell's discretion.

No, Pacman isn't being suspended for stuff that happened just under his tenure. What is he supposed to do? Does everyone get a clean slate just because there is a new commissioner?

The previous commissioner saw fit to punish him for nothing at all. To go from that to a full season is incredible - considering he's being punished, retroactively, for things noone had seen fit to punish him for prior.

Some things take time to figure out. Just like Vick. It will take some time to sort through that whole mess. I know some people will be frustrated that Vick doesn't miss time this season, but it probably will take until next year before there is a resolution. What if Goodell retired before then? Would the next commissioner have no say in the matter?

That's pretty different scenario. If the situation was not resolved until Goodell was out, of course the new commissioner would be able to rule fairly. But if Goodell had already ruled on it, and seen fit to do nothing, and the new commish decided to suspend Vick for a season on a technicality, while clearly taking into account the dog fighting (see your quote below..crossover = technicality ) that is not fair. It feels like it violates double jeopardy principles, but not quite, if you get my direction, there.

It is the office of the commissioner, not just the person in the office. Although, the two failure to report arrests came to the forefront once Goodell was in charge. The arrests happened prior. Nice little crossover there.

 

[joseephuss]

There is no glass.

http://i32.***BLOCKED***/albums/d2/superpunk2884/jawschum.gif

yeah...irrelevent. ^^^



Cuz you're fly like that.

They could at least attempt. Run ins with the law could be 4 games for a first time offense. Misdemeanors carry a certain penalty. Felonies something different. I don't think it's impossible, or even that difficult. The grey areas could fall under commissioner's discretion, as every possible scenario cannot be planned for. That would certainly be better than the current system, where all punsihments are Goodell's discretion.


The previous commissioner saw fit to punish him for nothing at all. To go from that to a full season is incredible - considering he's being punished, retroactively, for things noone had seen fit to punish him for prior.


That's pretty different scenario. If the situation was not resolved until Goodell was out, of course the new commissioner would be able to rule fairly. But if Goodell had already ruled on it, and seen fit to do nothing, and the new commish decided to suspend Vick for a season on a technicality, while clearly taking into account the dog fighting (see your quote below..crossover = technicality ) that is not fair. It feels like it violates double jeopardy principles, but not quite, if you get my direction, there.

Tags didn't have to deal with Pacman failing to report two arrests? That knowledge came about later. Tags also didn't have the players pushing for punishment. That is unprecedented. The players actually seeking out punishment for one of their own. This is a new era. I don't think Goodell has done everything perfectly, but with a new era you can expect some kinks to be worked out. It will take time to work them out and clearly define some of the punishments similar to the steroids policy. It may not be as easy as you think. A misdemeanor marijuana possession i Dallas may be seen differently that one in San Diego, one in Miami or one in Buffalo.

 

[superpunk]

Tags didn't have to deal with Pacman failing to report two arrests? That knowledge came about later. Tags also didn't have the players pushing for punishment. That is unprecedented. The players actually seeking out punishment for one of their own. This is a new era. I don't think Goodell has done everything perfectly, but with a new era you can expect some kinks to be worked out. It will take time to work them out and clearly define some of the punishments similar to the steroids policy. It may not be as easy as you think. A misdemeanor marijuana possession i Dallas may be seen differently that one in San Diego, one in Miami or one in Buffalo.

Why would that be true?

Is the conduct less "detrimental to the league" in different locales? Or are you just talking legally?

In any case, it was a rudimentary policy I came up with in 5 minutes from my office. I'm sure it's got kinks. But that's a start.

 

[joseephuss]

Why would that be true?

Is the conduct less "detrimental to the league" in different locales? Or are you just talking legally?

In any case, it was a rudimentary policy I came up with in 5 minutes from my office. I'm sure it's got kinks. But that's a start.

I was talking about legally, which the league still tries to abide with before dishing out punishment. Now if they want to define it as just conduct detrimental, then there should be no difference.

Also, you said

The previous commissioner saw fit to punish him for nothing at all.

Is that really true? Maybe it is that Tags chose not yet to punish him. Maybe more info was needed. We don't know what Tags shared with Goodell concerning Pacman. What they had and what they needed. Kind of like Ike passing on his knowledge to JFK about the impending Bay of Pigs invasion.

 

[Angus]

"Fair" is not the issue. Whether or not a particular suspension is "fair" is beside the point.

The point: To take action that is in the best interests of the NFL as determined by the commissioner. He doesn't run a court of law. He is not a governmental entity bound by equal protection.

He is charged with managing the affairs of the league to the best advantage of the league and needn't concern himself with "fairness" in handing out suspensions to players -- except as a public relations or union matter.

Moreover, it can be considered "fair" anyway in the sense that the players know good deportment is required of them by the NFL, and if they don't want to deport themselves in that manner they can do otherwise -- but, then, are not entitled to be a part of the NFL as/if the commissioner so determines.

 

[joseephuss]

"Fair" is not the issue. Whether or not a particular suspension is "fair" is beside the point.

The point: To take action that is in the best interests of the NFL as determined by the commissioner. He doesn't run a court of law. He is not a governmental entity bound by equal protection.

He is charged with managing the affairs of the league to the best advantage of the league and needn't concern himself with "fairness" in handing out suspensions to players -- except as a public relations or union matter.

Moreover, it can be considered "fair" anyway in the sense that the players know good deportment is required of them by the NFL, and if they don't want to deport themselves in that manner they can do otherwise -- but, then, are not entitled to be a part of the NFL as/if the commissioner so determines.

"Fair" is an issue. Just maybe not as big an issue as some may think. Or perhaps it is the definition. What the commissioner has done is fair because he has the support of the owners and players. If the players came back and said that Goodell was excessive and really fought it, then we could see it as unfair. The NFLPA did say they thought it was a little extreme, but they didn't fight it with much gusto. Therefore the suspensions are unchanged. It is "fair" because they have come to the agreement that it is "fair".

This is what all parties involved want. I don't consider the fans as one of the parties involved and that is probably wrong. There is some outcry from fans. I am sure some fans have sent letters or made calls to the teams and players they root for and asked to clean up their act.

 

[silverbear]

I think a clearly defined policy with clear, unyielding punishments would be far more effective than the current discretionary policy - which is difficult to comprehend and predict.

While I understand what you're saying, there is danger inherent in that approach too... look at what happened when some states implemented the infamous "three strikes and you're out" policy, in which the third conviction for a felony resulted in a mandatory life sentence... ever read of somebody convicted of a really minor felony, like marijuana possession, being sent to jail for life under that rule?? Does it sound fair to you that a 3 time offender whose only crime was smoking marijuana (even three times) should go to jail for life??

There are valid arguments to be made for mandatory sentencing, and valid arguments to be made for judging each case individually...

It may well be that Goodell has perfectly understandable and legitimate reasons for the lengths of each suspension he's handed down, but as is the case with drug offenders in the NFL, is required by league rules to keep those understandable and legitimate reasons confidential...

 

[03EBZ06]

If Pacman's punishment was unfair or excessive, there is no way Pacman & his lawyer(s) withdraws his appeal and no way NFLPA sit on their hands.

None of us are prevey to all the details surrounding Pacman's failures and information Goodell has to say whether the punishment was fair or unfair but since players, lawyers, and NFLPA hasn't complained about it, at least, I haven't hear them complain, I'm guessing that it wasn't unfair nor excessive.

 

[silverbear]

"Fair" is an issue. Just maybe not as big an issue as some may think. Or perhaps it is the definition. What the commissioner has done is fair because he has the support of the owners and players. If the players came back and said that Goodell was excessive and really fought it, then we could see it as unfair. The NFLPA did say they thought it was a little extreme, but they didn't fight it with much gusto. Therefore the suspensions are unchanged. It is "fair" because they have come to the agreement that it is "fair".

This is what all parties involved want. I don't consider the fans as one of the parties involved and that is probably wrong. There is some outcry from fans. I am sure some fans have sent letters or made calls to the teams and players they root for and asked to clean up their act.

I definitely think most fans approve of the recent suspensions, as much as the players and the owners do...

It might be interesting to put up a poll on this board on that subject, "Do you approve of the way the new Commissioner has handled player suspensions for violating the Player Conduct Policy??"... I'd be intrigued to see the results of that one...

 

[burmafrd]

Considering how much support and how little outcry there has been its clear that so far Goodell has been pretty much on the money as regards dropping the hammer. As long as the players overall and the owners support him the outcries of those whinning about fairness matter not at all. Of course with only 3 examples so far, there is not much to base any outcry on. At least for most reasonable people.