Draw Your Line

[tmax63]

There's lots of people here who don't mind Clark's history or Hunt and Hill's history either. There's some here who do. Where do you draw the line?

Is it conviction?
Is it "cops called, reports filed"?
Is it multiple incidents?
Is an allegation from college enough?

Is it cultural? Some people were raised to spank their kids and see nothing wrong with a "board of education". Others will scream "Child Abuse" and want to take kids out of the home and throw them into the foster care system.
If you grew up seeing mom and dad fighting how long do you get to figure out that's not how it's supposed to be before you are accountable? What's the appropriate level of punishment?
Polls are to rigid, just looking for your answers.

[ChiefsFanatic]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I may be an outlier, but I think that off the field stuff should stay off the field. If a guy gets put in jail and can't play, then he crossed the line. But taking action on anything else is the NFL just doing public relations and generally mangling it.



I absolutely despise what Michael Vick did, and I was glad that he didn't sign with the Chiefs, but in the end the off-field stuff was handled and he's got a right to earn a living after that. I feel the same way about any other player or any other worker in America.



I guess it's the employer's right to fire an employee if the employee is publicly doing stuff that the employer doesn't like, or that might hurt the employer's business, but come on. This is the NFL. A few whiny fans will boycott until their team is in the playoffs, and then they'll be back.

Didn't Leonard Little kill a man while driving drunk, and continued to play? I think the line now moves depending on whether or not there is video evidence.

I mean, if there wasn't video of Ray Rice knocking his wife out cold, he probably would have kept his job. Kareem Hunt would still be on our roster without the video. Allegations without video evidence (or in some cases physical evidence) is just one person's word against another, and it's easy to create narratives and spin the situation into something palatable.

Sent from my LG-H932 using Tapatalk

[TLO]

Originally Posted by big nasty kcnut

___________________________

Ok I drew my line now what?

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by tmax63

There's lots of people here who don't mind Clark's history or Hunt and Hill's history either. There's some here who do. Where do you draw the line?

Is it conviction?
Is it "cops called, reports filed"?
Is it multiple incidents?
Is an allegation from college enough?

Is it cultural? Some people were raised to spank their kids and see nothing wrong with a "board of education". Others will scream "Child Abuse" and want to take kids out of the home and throw them into the foster care system.
If you grew up seeing mom and dad fighting how long do you get to figure out that's not how it's supposed to be before you are accountable? What's the appropriate level of punishment?
Polls are to rigid, just looking for your answers.

As I've always said, I draw the line at a conviction. I don't think any employer SHOULD have the right to discriminate against someone for a pending charge, crimimal or otherwise.

[StinkBox]

Originally Posted by Why Not?

Don’t give a shit at all what athletes do off the field.

This. There's this whole thing called 'the law' and the 'judicial system' and if you're in prison, you can't go to work. Otherwise, **** off and get out of the equation.