NFL Legal Thread: Ray Rice/Adrian Peterson DV cases

3,709
622
Joined
Jul 18, 2012
These are so hot button right now that it might need its own thread. I know a few posters have voiced the idea that they don't want to go into the NFL Discussion thread and have to read debates about personal ideals and would rather just discuss football, so that's point of creating this thread. I don't really care if we don't end up using it, but I want to give it a chance if it helps clear up the discussion thread. Up to us how we want it to go, really.

Ray Rice is appealing his suspension tomorrow for having been suspended twice for the same incident. Double jeopardy, if you will. 

With AP....Who knows? 

Erased my spoiler because I don't know if I liked how I wrote it or if the thread is ready to start off like that. I have no children and was not raised in the south, so there's a lot of room for ignorance here. I just hope we can discuss this civilly. 
 
Last edited:
wheres the complexion for the protection for blacks when you need it..  nfls doing a blackout with these incidents..
 
Both dudes need jail time. Ray Rice's incident vs. Michael Vic,,, Since Mike Vic came back then its only fair if Ray Rice returns as well.
Whats up with AP losing a kid then beating his other kid. :smh: **** aint right.
 
the irony of a company like budweiser complaining about the NFL's handling of domestic violence cases.  I'm sure alot of domestic violence episodes have indirectly occured due to a man being impaired and acting irrational after drinking a few too many cold buds and I wonder how many people will leave a bar hammered tonight after last call and pounding numerous buds and getting ready to drive a car home impaired.

budweiser needs to shut up and sell beer and chill with the fake outrage crap when their product indirectly contributes to drunk driving and domestic violence.  Same with mcdonalds, worry about your unhealthy crap food rather then trying to use fake outrage to determine how another league handles its discipline.

whatever happened to due process though?  they re deactivated him due to fear of losing corporate sponsors and public opinion which is stupid when neither of those two things will help them win football games.

suspending players or deactivating them while the process plays out sets a very bad precedent. it's basically guilty until proven innocent which isn't cool.  let them have their day in court and if the courts deem them guilty then punish them accordingly but the way their doing things is a very slipery slope.

imagine the week of the super bowl,  lets just say panthers vs bengals.    some groupie accuses cam newton or andy dalton of sexual assault or says one of them hit her.    she's totally lying, but going off the current set up, there would pressure by sponsors and public outrage for that player to be suspended for the super bow (in daltons case that might help the bengals 
laugh.gif
) but aside from that it would cause a huge unnecessary distraction.

people have been upset with the 49ers for letting mcdonald play but i think their doing the right thing.  give him his due process and let things play themselves out rather then let public opinion dictate how a NFL team is ran.  
 
laugh.gif
 Are you really going to blame a brewing company for the decisions people choose to make?

The NFL is one of Anheuser-Busch's biggest sponsors and vice versa. The NFL is under lots of scrutiny. Some people will choose not to watch/support the NFL because of their handling(s) with recent issues. That hurts Anheuser-Busch's marketing/sales. They have every right to be rustled.
 
So lets just disregard that tobacco companies have been sued numerous times over the years and have made numerous payouts.

A beer company of all people complaining about the NFL is the pot calling the kettle black.

Some of you you guys snobbish dismissive tendancies when you disagree with someone come across as real ignorant. Make some sense and elaborate rather then act ignorant.
 
So lets just disregard that tobacco companies have been sued numerous times over the years and have made numerous payouts.

A beer company of all people complaining about the NFL is the pot calling the kettle black.

Some of you you guys snobbish dismissive tendancies when you disagree with someone come across as real ignorant. Make some sense and elaborate rather then act ignorant.


Direct vs indirect damage, along with withholding information on the effects, 2nd hand harm, targeting minors, etc. some similarities between the industries but also numerous differences. You were citing indirect damages due to alcohol. Could be interesting to explore further
 
Last edited:
I need to sue Dodge for making cars that go so fast.

They owe me all my speeding ticket money plus I could have killed somebody.
 
Last edited:
Why are we comparing cars to beer? You need to pass a behind the wheel driving test in order to legally operate a vehicle.

You just need to turn 21 to legally drink beer.

But the original point went over your head I see. Beer companies are the last people who should be on a moral soapbox when the abuse of their products indirectly causes domestic violence and drunk driving accidents.

Put that fake outrage towards raising responsible alcohol awareness and ads speaking out against drunk driving, and maybe pay for the funeral costs of some drunk driving victims rather then try and dictate how another company disciplines employees who haven't had their due process in incidents that occurred outside the workplace.

If it was a woman's group or a child's rights group griping at the NFL I can respect it because the issue is genuine, but not from a beer company.
 
I appreciate any entity that speaks out against domestic and child violence, never a bad thing..(shrugs)


And employers don't have to respect due process
 
Last edited:
So lets just disregard that tobacco companies have been sued numerous times over the years and have made numerous payouts.

A beer company of all people complaining about the NFL is the pot calling the kettle black.

Some of you you guys snobbish dismissive tendancies when you disagree with someone come across as real ignorant. Make some sense and elaborate rather then act ignorant.
lol
 
they don't have to resepct due process but it does set a bad precedent when they bactrack on a decision due to public outrage, and threats from sponsors who want to have a say on how a team handles things.

like I said earlier, this guilty until proven innocent stuff allows a slippery slope.   let a team playing in the super bowls star player be accused of something regarding domestic violence the week of the super bowl where  we don't have all the facts.  should that player miss the big game? should that team cave into public pressure and corporate pressure and bench that player in a situation where the accuser could very well be lying?   Those corporations and the public opinion people speaking on a teams organization can care less whether the person is guilty or not.  Their not going to apologize and say, "We caused this huge uproar, demanded you sit out the biggest game of your life without knowing all the facts, only to find out you were innocent, we're sorry for our mistake."

on the part about speaking out, I respect it if it's genuine and not with the intent of protecting financial interests. tmz could care less about domestic violence, but posting a video of ray rice hitting his wife brings ratings. budweiser is speaking out from a financial perspective from how I see it and I can't respect that.  if their intent was genuine then that's one thing, but I just don't see it that way
 
how is it bs?  typical elitest slick talkin niketalker response, oh he thinks different then me so let me just act passive aggressive and dismissive. 
 
I guess my point is even if disingenuous at least it gets the issue out there and hopefully gives people strength to speak out against the action and notify the authorities if something is going on. That's more important than anything else, keep the (especially) kids safe. Cheesy but true
 
first of all youre all over the place. second of all, it's all bs. as in complete garbage

like you're placing priority on an accused player possibly missing a "big game" because some real life situation(s) happen(s) to be getting in the way of the team prospering. your priorities are skewed. you're critiquing the wrong groups here - from a beer company to the people who actually speak out against this type of violence to other groups who you suspect of having some type of financial interest  or agenda that's more important than the issue of domestic violence, child abuse, etc . it doesn't change anything in the scheme of things. the message that it's probably wrong to behave in such ways gets through loud and clear

your outrage about the outrage you perceive as disingenuous is making you look real bad
 
I guess my point is even if disingenuous at least it gets the issue out there and hopefully gives people strength to speak out against the action and notify the authorities if something is going on. That's more important than anything else, keep the (especially) kids safe. Cheesy but true
i can respect that, but at the same time i can agree to disagree with it though.  to me the intent of ones actions says alot about their integrity.  budweiser most likely is speaking out from a financial perspective.  there's been numerous domestic violence cases, not just in the NFL, but in other sports, with other public figures such as celebs, and with regular people.  How come they didn't speak on it back then?

i hope it doesn't happen, but what seriously happens if a star player is accused of something outrageous the week of a big game? how is the team supposed to act and respond to mere accusations?
 
 
first of all youre all over the place. second of all, it's all bs. as in complete garbage

like you're placing priority on an accused player possibly missing a "big game" because some real life situation(s) happen(s) to be getting in the way of the team prospering. your priorities are skewed. you're critiquing the wrong groups here - from a beer company to the people who actually speak out against this type of violence to other groups who you suspect of having some type of financial interest  or agenda that's more important than the issue of domestic violence, child abuse, etc . it doesn't change anything in the scheme of things. the message that it's probably wrong to behave in such ways gets through loud and clear

your outrage about the outrage you perceive as disingenuous is making you look real bad
your reaction to my post is pure opinion and your dismissive approach to anything you disagree with says alot about you. you come across as very rude and ignorant and don't know how to express yourself in a proper manner.

should a star player miss a big game off of a mere accusation? answer that,  if so it opens up the floodgates for that to potentially be abused.    

domestic violence has been going on for years.  it didn't all of a sudden become wrong and bad now.  it's been bad, so why all the outrage and demands now all of a sudden?  answer that.

what's so hard about giving a person their day in court, let the chips fall how they may.  if the player is proven guilty, let the justice system punish them and let the NFL punish them how they see fit
 
But the NFL has never waited for the legal system, that part isn't new. And if it is a 'big game', trust me the league nor team will do anything. It's a game to all of them, sponsors, NFL, teams, etc, and we are the ones taken for a ride. Unfortunate but just how it is
 
Back
Top Bottom