Peterson charged with reckless or negligent injury to a child? (1 Viewer)

[davearm]

But what's your point? Public sentiment also made that company fire its CEO that was seen beating the crap out of a dog. There are some things the Constitution addresses, and there are many, many more things it doesn't address. If Adrian Peterson was thrown in jail without a trial, then there would be a Constitutional issue, but consistently repeating the words "DUE PROCESS" is as silly as saying a kid's First Amendment rights are being violated when his parents make him go to church.

That is a gross misunderstanding and oversimplification of laws in our country.

As stated in the 5th and 14th amendments: "[N]or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

One could easily argue that Peterson has been deprived of the liberty of pursuing his career and passion of playing football. While no attorney will likely argue that directly, there are labor and employment laws based on the 4th and 15th amendments to protect individuals from undue persecution and discrimination in the work place.

If public sentiment were able to dictate who plays or who doesn't, then Jackie Robinson would have never picked up a bat for the Dodgers.

You had the right idea earlier, when you decided to abandon the Constitutional portion of your crusade.

AP will have his day in court, and due process under the law will be afforded him.

All of the other players here (fans, NFL, sponsors, Vikings etc.) are not bound by the tenets of the law.

The Vikings and the NFL are bound by league rules and the CBA. How they handle the situation will be dictated by those agreements, not by the Constitution.

Sponsors are bound by whatever contract language exists between them and the team/league.

And fans and John and Jane Q. Public are pretty much free to judge for themselves at any time, weighing whatever factors and evidence they see fit.

 

[chinawildman]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. I like to see things for what they are and what they could be. I like to think this incident has raised public awareness about proper parenting, so maybe fewer kids get beat with sticks by the people who are supposed to be caring for them. I think the NFL, while not at all obligated to be the morality police, is uniquely positioned to be an agent of change in these areas.

And I suppose that is where our stances differ. A change to what exactly? A change to a system where the NFL does whatever the people want them to do, with no regard for the legal process? You don't see a problem here? Do you think the color barrier in sports would have been broken when it was using that standard? The mob always thinks it's right, until they're shown to be wrong.

 

[chinawildman]

All of the other players here (fans, NFL, sponsors, Vikings etc.) are not bound by the tenets of the law.

So basically the Vikings can release Adrian Peterson because he's black... After all, they're not bound by any laws right?

 

[Johnny Blood]

Adrian Peterson is not employed in France. Unless your employer discriminates against you for being a member of a protected class they can fire you for any reason or no reason whatsoever. You keep talking about the color barrier---race is a protected class. Outside of that your employer does not even need a reason to fire you, and if they do have a reason it doesn't make any difference what the reason is. They can fire you for being left handed if they want. It. Doesn't. Matter.

France is the place where they need a reason to fire you and you can sue if you think their reason isn't good enough. Not America.

They can cut Adrian today and unless they try to withhold guaranteed money specified in the contract there is no basis for suing, whether they give no reason, a good reason, or a bad reason.

 

[Proust Loves Cake]

If you keep seeing references to constitutional amendments, then maybe consider that is actually some degree of sentiment that are concerned with that issue. Public sentiment is what it is, whether you agree with it or not.

For one, I keep seeing it from the same three people or so, so I'm not sure how representative it is. And as I'm sure you would agree, sometimes public sentiment is wrong. Lots of people might think Peterson's employment status is a Constitutional issue. That doesn't mean it is.

I don't have to try and conflate anything because the simple fact is: Public opinion ultimately decided whether a man was going into work today.

No, his employers decided that. Their decision, of course, was largely based on public sentiment because they are in the entertainment business and Peterson was one of their most prominent employees. He's a public figure, and he admitted to beating a child with a stick. It shouldn't be surprising that his employers no longer want him representing their brand when his actions outraged a large percentage of their customers.

If you set aside due process, there is still the subject of labor and employment law, which happens to be one of the larger branches of the legal field.

If deactivating Peterson somehow violated his rights as an employee of the NFL, he'll sue. I'm sure the league and the Vikings considered those issues when they made their decision.

Call me melodramatic if you'd like. While you prefer to see things for what they are, I like to see things for what they could be. Neither is better than the other, just different.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. I like to see things for what they are and what they could be. I like to think this incident has raised public awareness about proper parenting, so maybe fewer kids get beat with sticks by the people who are supposed to be caring for them. I think the NFL, while not at all obligated to be the morality police, is uniquely positioned to be an agent of change in these areas. Maybe the poor Southerner who whips his kids just like his dad did and his granddad did didn't go to college, doesn't read a lot of books, doesn't associate with people who find this treatment abhorrent, etc. But maybe he tunes in on Sundays to watch football. Maybe the world could be a better place precisely by having an organization like the NFL take a strong stand against this form of discipline.

This is excellent, and I 100% agree.

Ultimately, i am relieved by the ultimate outcome. Disregarding some of the ignorant commentary on display here, i do believe the silver lining in all of this is that it has, or at least will, result in some reconsideration by some parents about how they discipline they'd children. As a result, some kids ultimately are spared the barbaric abuse practices that inexplicably still somehow exist.

 

[chinawildman]

No attorney will argue that directly because it's an absurd argument. There are labor and employment laws; had the Vikings broken any of them, then don't you think that would be something Peterson's attorneys would have pointed out?

If you're being serious with your argument, please tell me this: when the Vikings released A.J. Jefferson three hours after he was arrested for domestic violence, were Jefferson's due process rights violated? Why or why not?

Give it some time, the union has 4 weeks to work on this. Civil laws are seldom black and white, you don't just point at something and say "Hey look you're breaking the law", you have burdens of evidence, show precedence, etc...

I don't know anything about the Jefferson incident, but from reading that article I can tell you if the Vikings had any alternative explanations for why they released him, then no it's unlikely for Jefferson to argue due process. The Vikings could easily justify their release by citing poor performance and just pure team related reasons unrelated to the incident.

That's a bit more difficult to argue with Peterson, especially considering he's still a member of the team. It also explains why they're still paying him during this duration. If they weren't then a lawsuit would be much more likely.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Adrian Peterson is not employed in France. Unless your employer discriminates against you for being a member of a protected class they can fire you for any reason or no reason whatsoever. You keep talking about the color barrier---race is a protected class. Outside of that your employer does not even need a reason to fire you, and if they do have a reason it doesn't make any difference what the reason is. They can fire you for being left handed if they want. It. Doesn't. Matter.

France is the place where they need a reason to fire you and you can sue if you think their reason isn't good enough. Not America.

They can cut Adrian today and unless they try to withhold guaranteed money specified in the contract there is no basis for suing, whether they give no reason, a good reason, or a bad reason.

Unless you have a contract, or collectively bargained rights - neither of which are clear at this point...

 

[chinawildman]

Adrian Peterson is not employed in France. Unless your employer discriminates against you for being a member of a protected class they can fire you for any reason or no reason whatsoever. You keep talking about the color barrier---race is a protected class. Outside of that your employer does not even need a reason to fire you, and if they do have a reason it doesn't make any difference what the reason is. They can fire you for being left handed if they want. It. Doesn't. Matter.

France is the place where they need a reason to fire you and you can sue if you think their reason isn't good enough. Not America.

They can cut Adrian today and unless they try to withhold guaranteed money specified in the contract there is no basis for suing, whether they give no reason, a good reason, or a bad reason.

You're kidding right?

 

[Neofight]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. I like to see things for what they are and what they could be. I like to think this incident has raised public awareness about proper parenting, so maybe fewer kids get beat with sticks by the people who are supposed to be caring for them. I think the NFL, while not at all obligated to be the morality police, is uniquely positioned to be an agent of change in these areas.

And I suppose that is where our stances differ. A change to what exactly? A change to a system where the NFL does whatever the people want them to do, with no regard for the legal process? You don't see a problem here? Do you think the color barrier in sports would have been broken when it was using that standard? The mob always thinks it's right, until they're shown to be wrong.

How is this any different from the individual, the Church, the State and the Loyal Order of Water Buffalo?

 

[fourd]

No attorney will argue that directly because it's an absurd argument. There are labor and employment laws; had the Vikings broken any of them, then don't you think that would be something Peterson's attorneys would have pointed out?

If you're being serious with your argument, please tell me this: when the Vikings released A.J. Jefferson three hours after he was arrested for domestic violence, were Jefferson's due process rights violated? Why or why not?

Give it some time, the union has 4 weeks to work on this. Civil laws are seldom black and white, you don't just point at something and say "Hey look you're breaking the law", you have burdens of evidence, show precedence, etc...

I don't know anything about the Jefferson incident, but from reading that article I can tell you if the Vikings had any alternative explanations for why they released him, then no it's unlikely for Jefferson to argue due process. The Vikings could easily justify their release by citing poor performance and just pure team related reasons unrelated to the incident.

That's a bit more difficult to argue with Peterson, especially considering he's still a member of the team. It also explains why they're still paying him during this duration. If they weren't then a lawsuit would be much more likely.

The NFLPA was involved in Peterson getting placed on the Commissioner's Exempt List. And Adrian agreed to it. So I feel pretty confident that this was handled within the laws governing the situation. That may not work for your arguments but it is what it is.

Greg Hardy was also just placed on this list.

 

[fourd]

Adrian Peterson is not employed in France. Unless your employer discriminates against you for being a member of a protected class they can fire you for any reason or no reason whatsoever. You keep talking about the color barrier---race is a protected class. Outside of that your employer does not even need a reason to fire you, and if they do have a reason it doesn't make any difference what the reason is. They can fire you for being left handed if they want. It. Doesn't. Matter.

France is the place where they need a reason to fire you and you can sue if you think their reason isn't good enough. Not America.

They can cut Adrian today and unless they try to withhold guaranteed money specified in the contract there is no basis for suing, whether they give no reason, a good reason, or a bad reason.

Unless you have a contract, or collectively bargained rights - neither of which are clear at this point...

Yes, it really is.

 

[Johnny Blood]

Adrian Peterson is not employed in France. Unless your employer discriminates against you for being a member of a protected class they can fire you for any reason or no reason whatsoever. You keep talking about the color barrier---race is a protected class. Outside of that your employer does not even need a reason to fire you, and if they do have a reason it doesn't make any difference what the reason is. They can fire you for being left handed if they want. It. Doesn't. Matter.

France is the place where they need a reason to fire you and you can sue if you think their reason isn't good enough. Not America.

They can cut Adrian today and unless they try to withhold guaranteed money specified in the contract there is no basis for suing, whether they give no reason, a good reason, or a bad reason.

You're kidding right?

Do you not live in America?

Here's a good description of the at-will employment standards in this country. It's taken from California's supreme court. Other states are worse:

[A]n employer may terminate its employees at will, for any or no reason ... the employer may act peremptorily, arbitrarily, or inconsistently, without providing specific protections such as prior warning, fair procedures, objective evaluation, or preferential reassignment ... The mere existence of an employment relationship affords no expectation, protectable by law, that employment will continue, or will end only on certain conditions, unless the parties have actually adopted such terms.

Other than a very limited number of forms of discrimination against protected classes, that passage describes the way that anyone's job can be terminated.

Every year dozens (hundreds?) of NFL players are cut for no other reason than the team doesn't want to pay them what their contract says they should be paid. Peterson's case is no different in any way whatsoever. The evidence is overwhelming that the bargaining agreement between the NFL and NFLPA allows arbitrary termination. The only potential legal issue is if the Vikings withhold guaranteed money.

 

[chinawildman]

Other than a very limited number of forms of discrimination against protected classes, that passage describes the way that anyone's job can be terminated.

Every year dozens (hundreds?) of NFL players are cut for no other reason than the team doesn't want to pay them what their contract says they should be paid. Peterson's case is no different in any way whatsoever. The evidence is overwhelming that the bargaining agreement between the NFL and NFLPA allows arbitrary termination. The only potential legal issue is if the Vikings withhold guaranteed money.

I thought you'd find this amusing... found it just for you.

Left-Handed Clerk Wins Job Discrimination Suit

 

[chinawildman]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. I like to see things for what they are and what they could be. I like to think this incident has raised public awareness about proper parenting, so maybe fewer kids get beat with sticks by the people who are supposed to be caring for them. I think the NFL, while not at all obligated to be the morality police, is uniquely positioned to be an agent of change in these areas.

And I suppose that is where our stances differ. A change to what exactly? A change to a system where the NFL does whatever the people want them to do, with no regard for the legal process? You don't see a problem here? Do you think the color barrier in sports would have been broken when it was using that standard? The mob always thinks it's right, until they're shown to be wrong.

How is this any different from the individual, the Church, the State and the Loyal Order of Water Buffalo?

They're not any different (except in the state's case where they are the actual executors of the law).. and should any of those you listed sanction their employees without ample justification of the law, a potential law suit is apt to follow.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

But what's your point? Public sentiment also made that company fire its CEO that was seen beating the crap out of a dog. There are some things the Constitution addresses, and there are many, many more things it doesn't address. If Adrian Peterson was thrown in jail without a trial, then there would be a Constitutional issue, but consistently repeating the words "DUE PROCESS" is as silly as saying a kid's First Amendment rights are being violated when his parents make him go to church.

That is a gross misunderstanding and oversimplification of laws in our country.

As stated in the 5th and 14th amendments: "[N]or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

...by the government. Just like the 1st amendment ensures you won't be punished by the government for speaking freely - but your employer can still fire you for running your mouth at the office. The 5th and 14th amendments don't ensure that you get to keep your job after admitting to beating a child, and it continues to be a gross perversion of the situation to insist that they do. Peterson will have his day in court - that's what the Constitution ensures. It does not ensure that the Vikings continue to pay him $700,000 a week while he goes to trial.

One could easily argue that Peterson has been deprived of the liberty of pursuing his career and passion of playing football. While no attorney will likely argue that directly, there are labor and employment laws based on the 4th and 15th amendments to protect individuals from undue persecution and discrimination in the work place.

If his employers violated the law by suspending him, he'll sue. I'm sure the NFL and the Vikings considered that before making their decision.

If public sentiment were able to dictate who plays or who doesn't, then Jackie Robinson would have never picked up a bat for the Dodgers.

But Jackie Robinson did play for the Dodgers, because public sentiment doesn't dictate who plays and who doesn't. The league and the owners do.

 

[chinawildman]

The NFLPA was involved in Peterson getting placed on the Commissioner's Exempt List. And Adrian agreed to it. So I feel pretty confident that this was handled within the laws governing the situation. That may not work for your arguments but it is what it is.

Yes as it stands now everything is kosher. In fact this was pretty much my prediction for what would happen from the onset in the suspension prediction thread. Note however that the official statement is that Peterson is taking a voluntary leave of absence.

It gets sticky when that voluntary becomes involuntary. What happens in a month when this thing has simmered down and Peterson wants to come back and the Vikings (miraculously) are somehow still in the hunt?

 

[Neofight]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. I like to see things for what they are and what they could be. I like to think this incident has raised public awareness about proper parenting, so maybe fewer kids get beat with sticks by the people who are supposed to be caring for them. I think the NFL, while not at all obligated to be the morality police, is uniquely positioned to be an agent of change in these areas.

And I suppose that is where our stances differ. A change to what exactly? A change to a system where the NFL does whatever the people want them to do, with no regard for the legal process? You don't see a problem here? Do you think the color barrier in sports would have been broken when it was using that standard? The mob always thinks it's right, until they're shown to be wrong.

How is this any different from the individual, the Church, the State and the Loyal Order of Water Buffalo?

They're not any different (except in the state's case where they are the actual executors of the law).. and should any of those you listed sanction their employees without ample justification of the law, a potential law suit is apt to follow.

Ok, so we've determined that the mob is just a group of ticked off people with a shared goal (like the Brownies).

One more question: do you honestly believe there's grounds for a lawsuit?

 

[chinawildman]

But Jackie Robinson did play for the Dodgers, because public sentiment doesn't dictate who plays and who doesn't. The league and the owners do.

Looking at the sequence of events over this week you honestly believe that's what happened? As I recall just yesterday the owners thought different.

 

[chinawildman]

One more question: do you honestly believe there's grounds for a lawsuit?

If and when Peterson's leave of absence no longer becomes voluntary and they still won't let him play? (Assuming the legal case has yet to be resolved) Yes. Though it likely depends on escalator or incentive clauses in his contract since they're technically still paying him at this point.

 

[fourd]

The NFLPA was involved in Peterson getting placed on the Commissioner's Exempt List. And Adrian agreed to it. So I feel pretty confident that this was handled within the laws governing the situation. That may not work for your arguments but it is what it is.

Yes as it stands now everything is kosher. In fact this was pretty much my prediction for what would happen from the onset in the suspension prediction thread. Note however that the official statement is that Peterson is taking a voluntary leave of absence.

It gets sticky when that voluntary becomes involuntary. What happens in a month when this thing has simmered down and Peterson wants to come back and the Vikings (miraculously) are somehow still in the hunt?

Keep fighting the good fight.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

All of the other players here (fans, NFL, sponsors, Vikings etc.) are not bound by the tenets of the law.

So basically the Vikings can release Adrian Peterson because he's black... After all, they're not bound by any laws right?

Race is a protected class under most (all?) anti-discrimination laws. "Child beater" is not, as far as I know.

 

[Neofight]

One more question: do you honestly believe there's grounds for a lawsuit?

If and when Peterson's leave of absence no longer becomes voluntary and they still won't let him play? (Assuming the legal case has yet to be resolved) Yes. Though it likely depends on escalator or incentive clauses in his contract since they're technically still paying him at this point.

Ok. I'll look forward to this.

 

[chinawildman]

...by the government. Just like the 1st amendment ensures you won't be punished by the government for speaking freely - but your employer can still fire you for running your mouth at the office. The 5th and 14th amendments don't ensure that you get to keep your job after admitting to beating a child, and it continues to be a gross perversion of the situation to insist that they do. Peterson will have his day in court - that's what the Constitution ensures. It does not ensure that the Vikings continue to pay him $700,000 a week while he goes to trial.

Ah but they ARE paying him, so what does that tell you?

And it really depends on what you're running your mouth off about, and whether it caused a "disturbance in the workplace". Unlike criminal law, there is much more gray and different standards of proof in the civil law world. OJ was found innocent in a criminal court, but guilty in civil court. Same laws apply though... go figure.

 

[fourd]

But what's your point? Public sentiment also made that company fire its CEO that was seen beating the crap out of a dog. There are some things the Constitution addresses, and there are many, many more things it doesn't address. If Adrian Peterson was thrown in jail without a trial, then there would be a Constitutional issue, but consistently repeating the words "DUE PROCESS" is as silly as saying a kid's First Amendment rights are being violated when his parents make him go to church.

That is a gross misunderstanding and oversimplification of laws in our country.

As stated in the 5th and 14th amendments: "[N]or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

...by the government. Just like the 1st amendment ensures you won't be punished by the government for speaking freely - but your employer can still fire you for running your mouth at the office. The 5th and 14th amendments don't ensure that you get to keep your job after admitting to beating a child, and it continues to be a gross perversion of the situation to insist that they do. Peterson will have his day in court - that's what the Constitution ensures. It does not ensure that the Vikings continue to pay him $700,000 a week while he goes to trial.

One could easily argue that Peterson has been deprived of the liberty of pursuing his career and passion of playing football. While no attorney will likely argue that directly, there are labor and employment laws based on the 4th and 15th amendments to protect individuals from undue persecution and discrimination in the work place.

If his employers violated the law by suspending him, he'll sue. I'm sure the NFL and the Vikings considered that before making their decision.

If public sentiment were able to dictate who plays or who doesn't, then Jackie Robinson would have never picked up a bat for the Dodgers.

But Jackie Robinson did play for the Dodgers, because public sentiment doesn't dictate who plays and who doesn't. The league and the owners do.

Exactly, the perfect example of sports leading despite public perception. They went against the mob.

 

[fatness]

Ah but they ARE paying him, so what does that tell you?

Pretty simple what it tells you. That the NFL took the path of least resistance, where neither the NFLPA or Peterson will put up a fuss about it.

 

[Neofight]

Ah but they ARE paying him, so what does that tell you?

Pretty simple what it tells you. That the NFL took the path of least resistance, where neither the NFLPA or Peterson will put up a fuss about it.

Tells me he may be playing for them again this year, at least that's what the Vikings hope. Also tells me the league is ill prepared to deal with these issues. However they still could've ####-canned Peterson without much worry of a lawsuit. They just don't want to.

 

[chinawildman]

Race is a protected class under most (all?) anti-discrimination laws. "Child beater" is not, as far as I know.

Technically, whether he is one or not is for a court of law to decide, it is not an immutable trait like race.

In a civil suit the question will likely be whether the league/Vikings have ample grounds to prevent him from playing before this determination is made. In that case, it is likely the photos and leaked police reports will be thrown out as evidence since their knowledge of those materials were technically obtained through illegal means.

BTW you don't have to be in a protected class to file an anti-discrimination suit (see my link about the left handed law suit)

 

[chinawildman]

Ah but they ARE paying him, so what does that tell you?

Pretty simple what it tells you. That the NFL took the path of least resistance, where neither the NFLPA or Peterson will put up a fuss about it.

Pretty much. I mean what would he sue them over? Not being able to hang out w his teammates?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

...by the government. Just like the 1st amendment ensures you won't be punished by the government for speaking freely - but your employer can still fire you for running your mouth at the office. The 5th and 14th amendments don't ensure that you get to keep your job after admitting to beating a child, and it continues to be a gross perversion of the situation to insist that they do. Peterson will have his day in court - that's what the Constitution ensures. It does not ensure that the Vikings continue to pay him $700,000 a week while he goes to trial.

Ah but they ARE paying him, so what does that tell you?

Nothing? They've opted to deactivate him, with pay, for the time being. So?

And it really depends on what you're running your mouth off about, and whether it caused a "disturbance in the workplace".

No it doesn't. My employer can fire me for pretty much any reason they want to, or no reason at all, with no notice. Of course, I can also quit whenever I want. The law protects both of us in that way.

 

[chinawildman]

But Jackie Robinson did play for the Dodgers, because public sentiment doesn't dictate who plays and who doesn't. The league and the owners do.

Exactly, the perfect example of sports leading despite public perception. They went against the mob.

And what do you suppose happened in this Peterson incident? I think you forgot what side you're on.

 

[whitem0nkey]

I noticed he is not on the top 200 going forward does that mean that FBG say to drop him?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

But Jackie Robinson did play for the Dodgers, because public sentiment doesn't dictate who plays and who doesn't. The league and the owners do.

Exactly, the perfect example of sports leading despite public perception. They went against the mob.

And what do you suppose happened in this Peterson incident? I think you forgot what side you're on.

The league acted in the way they saw fit. Sometimes that aligns with public sentiment (Peterson), sometimes perhaps it doesn't (Robinson). That's because the public doesn't dictate what happens to athletes, their employers do. That's the point.

 

[chinawildman]

...by the government. Just like the 1st amendment ensures you won't be punished by the government for speaking freely - but your employer can still fire you for running your mouth at the office. The 5th and 14th amendments don't ensure that you get to keep your job after admitting to beating a child, and it continues to be a gross perversion of the situation to insist that they do. Peterson will have his day in court - that's what the Constitution ensures. It does not ensure that the Vikings continue to pay him $700,000 a week while he goes to trial.

Ah but they ARE paying him, so what does that tell you?

Nothing? They've opted to deactivate him, with pay, for the time being. So?

And it really depends on what you're running your mouth off about, and whether it caused a "disturbance in the workplace".

No it doesn't. My employer can fire me for pretty much any reason they want to, or no reason at all, with no notice. Of course, I can also quit whenever I want. The law protects both of us in that way.

I believe others have already answered this successfully. My guess is that it's their way of evading a lawsuit.

I'm not sure where you guys get these ideas about how employers can just go around firing people. One of my friends, a female manager, just got sued for sexual discrimination in the workplace, by another woman. The company settled. Another buddy of mine that works at a petroleum company, basically says that nobody EVER gets fired there, they just get "reassigned", for fear of legal trouble.

Yea sure a company CAN fire you whenever they want. They just have to be prepared to face the consequences. Charges of racial discrimination and sexual harassment have increased every single decade since Title VII was passed in 1964.

Go give your boss the bird tomorrow at work, you might get rich.

 

[JHuber77]

"Nike in no way condones child abuse or domestic violence of any kind and has shared our concerns with the NFL," company spokesman KeJuan Wilkins said in a statement. "We have suspended our contract with Adrian Peterson."

Doesn't Nike make their shoes in Indonesia and other countries with kids from sweat shops?

 

[chinawildman]

But Jackie Robinson did play for the Dodgers, because public sentiment doesn't dictate who plays and who doesn't. The league and the owners do.

Exactly, the perfect example of sports leading despite public perception. They went against the mob.

And what do you suppose happened in this Peterson incident? I think you forgot what side you're on.

The league acted in the way they saw fit. Sometimes that aligns with public sentiment (Peterson), sometimes perhaps it doesn't (Robinson). That's because the public doesn't dictate what happens to athletes, their employers do. That's the point.

The league did nothing. They caved under commercial pressure, which succumbs to consumer pressure. It's an indirect link, but the cause and effect here is pretty obvious. Only after the backlash to his immediate reinstatement on Monday did the sponsors follow suit, followed by the VIkings the following day. The league was pretty much sitting on their hands wondering (as fatness put it) waiting for the path of least resistance.

 

[chinawildman]

"Nike in no way condones child abuse or domestic violence of any kind and has shared our concerns with the NFL," company spokesman KeJuan Wilkins said in a statement. "We have suspended our contract with Adrian Peterson."

Doesn't Nike make their shoes in Indonesia and other countries with kids from sweat shops?

Old news bores the mob... Nike could care less.

 

[Johnny Blood]

...by the government. Just like the 1st amendment ensures you won't be punished by the government for speaking freely - but your employer can still fire you for running your mouth at the office. The 5th and 14th amendments don't ensure that you get to keep your job after admitting to beating a child, and it continues to be a gross perversion of the situation to insist that they do. Peterson will have his day in court - that's what the Constitution ensures. It does not ensure that the Vikings continue to pay him $700,000 a week while he goes to trial.

Ah but they ARE paying him, so what does that tell you?

Nothing? They've opted to deactivate him, with pay, for the time being. So?

And it really depends on what you're running your mouth off about, and whether it caused a "disturbance in the workplace".

No it doesn't. My employer can fire me for pretty much any reason they want to, or no reason at all, with no notice. Of course, I can also quit whenever I want. The law protects both of us in that way.

I believe others have already answered this successfully. My guess is that it's their way of evading a lawsuit.

I'm not sure where you guys get these ideas about how employers can just go around firing people. One of my friends, a female manager, just got sued for sexual discrimination in the workplace, by another woman. The company settled. Another buddy of mine that works at a petroleum company, basically says that nobody EVER gets fired there, they just get "reassigned", for fear of legal trouble.

Yea sure a company CAN fire you whenever they want. They just have to be prepared to face the consequences. Charges of racial discrimination and sexual harassment have increased every single decade since Title VII was passed in 1964.

Go give your boss the bird tomorrow at work, you might get rich.

Sex is a protected class. It's almost like you don't understand what you read.

As for "where we got the idea", it is the place where you should get the idea. Read the CA Supreme Court decision quoted above.

You can be fired for playing fantasy football. You can be fired for not playing fantasy football.

 

[fatness]

"Nike in no way condones child abuse or domestic violence of any kind and has shared our concerns with the NFL," company spokesman KeJuan Wilkins said in a statement. "We have suspended our contract with Adrian Peterson."

Good

Doesn't Nike make their shoes in Indonesia and other countries with kids from sweat shops?

The NFL doesn't seem to care if they do.

 

[bumpman]

Now that Peterson has been taken care of, the public and sponsors should go back and take out Dez and Marshall, among others.

Offenders on the fieldOf the 12 active players with domestic violence-related arrests, the one with the most is Brandon Marshall, who has three. He’s never been convicted, but he served a three-game suspension in 2008 for personal conduct violations. But from there his story changes. He’s sought treatment, become an outspoken voice against domestic violence and is now considered a success, on and off the field.

Marshall has been offering commentary on the NFL’s unfolding crisis as an analyst for Showtime’s Inside the NFL. He said in a recent episode that he wasn’t sure whether a stricter disciplinary policy would have deterred him from violent behavior back then. The difference, he said, was deciding that he needed help.

Another player who has turned his career around is Bryant, a wide receiver for the Cowboys. In 2012, he was accused of hitting his mother, and agreed to anger counseling in exchange for having the charge dismissed. The NFL didn’t suspend him, but imposed a strict set of conduct guidelines that included counseling and a curfew. Last year, he showed up at a rally against domestic violence.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/nfl-controversy/still-playing-12-nfl-players-have-domestic-violence-arrests-n204831

 

[chinawildman]

Sex is a protected class. It's almost like you don't understand what you read.

As for "where we got the idea", it is the place where you should get the idea. Read the CA Supreme Court decision quoted above.

You can be fired for playing fantasy football. You can be fired for not playing fantasy football.

Maybe practice a little more, preach less? Your idea of at-will employment was all the rage in the late 1800s... But then again so were child labor and horse carriages at the time.

"Over the 20th century, many states modified the rule by adding an increasing number of exceptions, or by changing the default expectations in the employment contract altogether. In workplaces with a trade union recognized for purposes of collective bargaining, and in many public sector jobs, the normal standard for dismissal is that the employer must have a "just cause"."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

...by the government. Just like the 1st amendment ensures you won't be punished by the government for speaking freely - but your employer can still fire you for running your mouth at the office. The 5th and 14th amendments don't ensure that you get to keep your job after admitting to beating a child, and it continues to be a gross perversion of the situation to insist that they do. Peterson will have his day in court - that's what the Constitution ensures. It does not ensure that the Vikings continue to pay him $700,000 a week while he goes to trial.

Ah but they ARE paying him, so what does that tell you?

Nothing? They've opted to deactivate him, with pay, for the time being. So?

And it really depends on what you're running your mouth off about, and whether it caused a "disturbance in the workplace".

No it doesn't. My employer can fire me for pretty much any reason they want to, or no reason at all, with no notice. Of course, I can also quit whenever I want. The law protects both of us in that way.

I believe others have already answered this successfully. My guess is that it's their way of evading a lawsuit.

I'm not sure where you guys get these ideas about how employers can just go around firing people. One of my friends, a female manager, just got sued for sexual discrimination in the workplace, by another woman. The company settled. Another buddy of mine that works at a petroleum company, basically says that nobody EVER gets fired there, they just get "reassigned", for fear of legal trouble.

Yea sure a company CAN fire you whenever they want. They just have to be prepared to face the consequences. Charges of racial discrimination and sexual harassment have increased every single decade since Title VII was passed in 1964.

Go give your boss the bird tomorrow at work, you might get rich.

You seem like a reasonably smart guy so I'm not sure how you're not seeing the difference here. Of course there are laws against discrimination based on protected classes like race and sex. Flipping the bird at your boss isn't protected, why on earth would you think it is?

Why don't you take your own challenge, go tell off your boss tomorrow and then sue him when he fires you. You seem to believe you'll shortly be rolling in money.

 

[chinawildman]

You seem like a reasonably smart guy so I'm not sure how you're not seeing the difference here. Of course there are laws against discrimination based on protected classes like race and sex. Flipping the bird at your boss isn't protected, why on earth would you think it is?

Why don't you take your own challenge, go tell off your boss tomorrow and then sue him when he fires you. You seem to believe you'll shortly be rolling in money.

It was obviously a joke...

The point being. When you have so many protected classes... race, sex, age, religion, national origin, even genetics (yes GATTACA is here already ppl) that eventually the people that AREN'T protected only make up a small sliver of the workforce (American-born Caucasian men 18-40 belonging to a major christian sect?) And even these guys can raise a fuss about discrimination about education, personal associations, etc...

I mean a person won a discrimination suit for being left-handed... c'mon.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

The league did nothing. They caved under commercial pressure, which succumbs to consumer pressure. It's an indirect link, but the cause and effect here is pretty obvious. .

Of course it's obvious. So what? They're in the entertainment business, of course their decisions are strongly influenced by public sentiment. They don't want the bad optics of featuring an admitted child beater as one of their stars on the field on Sunday.

You keep implying that they've violated the law by deactivating Peterson. If they have, he'll sue. We'll see how it plays out I guess, I'm not an expert on the details of the CBA. Presumably the Vikings owners and the league office are very familiar with the details, though, and they still opted to deactivate Peterson. I don't think they'd have done so if there was a high likelihood of them losing a subsequent lawsuit to him.

 

[fatness]

The point being. When you have so many protected classes... race, sex, age, religion, national origin, even genetics (yes GATTACA is here already ppl) that eventually the people that AREN'T protected only make up a small sliver of the workforce (American-born Caucasian men 18-40 belonging to a major christian sect?) And even these guys can raise a fuss about discrimination about education, personal associations, etc...I mean a person won a discrimination suit for being left-handed... c'mon.

What does any of that have to do with Adrian Peterson?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

eventually the people that AREN'T protected only make up a small sliver of the workforce

Even if that was true, the small sliver of classes that aren't protected includes "child beaters." It's almost like you're saying Peterson is going to sue the Vikings, claiming they deactivated him because he's black. That's not how it works, such a claim would be quickly dismissed.

 

[chinawildman]

The league did nothing. They caved under commercial pressure, which succumbs to consumer pressure. It's an indirect link, but the cause and effect here is pretty obvious. .

Of course it's obvious. So what? They're in the entertainment business, of course their decisions are strongly influenced by public sentiment. They don't want the bad optics of featuring an admitted child beater as one of their stars on the field on Sunday.

You keep implying that they've violated the law by deactivating Peterson. If they have, he'll sue. We'll see how it plays out I guess, I'm not an expert on the details of the CBA. Presumably the Vikings owners and the league office are very familiar with the details, though, and they still opted to deactivate Peterson. I don't think they'd have done so if there was a high likelihood of them losing a subsequent lawsuit to him.

That didn't seem to be their stance yesterday in case you forgot already. Now take that causality argument, apply it to the American public of the 40s. Do you think if the Dodgers had caved in to pressures as easily as the Vikings flip-flopped that Robinson would've played?

I don't think anyone has violated any laws at this point. All parties obviously collaborated and decided that this was the best decision for now. My interest in the legal matters here have more to do with what happens when his leave is no longer "voluntary".

 

[chinawildman]

The point being. When you have so many protected classes... race, sex, age, religion, national origin, even genetics (yes GATTACA is here already ppl) that eventually the people that AREN'T protected only make up a small sliver of the workforce (American-born Caucasian men 18-40 belonging to a major christian sect?) And even these guys can raise a fuss about discrimination about education, personal associations, etc...I mean a person won a discrimination suit for being left-handed... c'mon.

What does any of that have to do with Adrian Peterson?

... regarding whether Peterson has grounds to bring a labor & employment based lawsuit when his leave of absence no longer becomes voluntary.

 

[fatness]

The point being. When you have so many protected classes... race, sex, age, religion, national origin, even genetics (yes GATTACA is here already ppl) that eventually the people that AREN'T protected only make up a small sliver of the workforce (American-born Caucasian men 18-40 belonging to a major christian sect?) And even these guys can raise a fuss about discrimination about education, personal associations, etc...I mean a person won a discrimination suit for being left-handed... c'mon.

What does any of that have to do with Adrian Peterson?

... regarding whether Peterson has grounds to bring a labor & employment based lawsuit when his leave of absence no longer becomes voluntary.

What does that have to do with all the "protected class" stuff?

 

[chinawildman]

eventually the people that AREN'T protected only make up a small sliver of the workforce

Even if that was true, the small sliver of classes that aren't protected includes "child beaters."It's almost like you're saying Peterson is going to sue the Vikings, claiming they deactivated him because he's black. That's not how it works, such a claim would be quickly dismissed.

Of course not, do not be ridiculous cousin.

 

[chinawildman]

The point being. When you have so many protected classes... race, sex, age, religion, national origin, even genetics (yes GATTACA is here already ppl) that eventually the people that AREN'T protected only make up a small sliver of the workforce (American-born Caucasian men 18-40 belonging to a major christian sect?) And even these guys can raise a fuss about discrimination about education, personal associations, etc...I mean a person won a discrimination suit for being left-handed... c'mon.

What does any of that have to do with Adrian Peterson?

... regarding whether Peterson has grounds to bring a labor & employment based lawsuit when his leave of absence no longer becomes voluntary.

What does that have to do with all the "protected class" stuff?

Some ppl in here claiming anyone can be fired for anything and he has no grounds. I'm saying in today's employment environment almost anyone can claim anything and have grounds. Anything else?