NFL Fires a Player qua Domestic Violence; morally right??

A de facto fine of a lot of money
has been imposed by the commissioner, upon the victim.

This is total BS....not only do we have a system to administer justice (the justice system)....which has already dealt with this offense, but the NFL is in the entertainment business not the justice business. And would somebody please explain to be how hurting the families finances helps the victim here? She is pissed, and she has a right to be. She has been violated again by the NFL and the news media.

This being OK with the majority shows how this society has become militantly puritanical..... why we sit around bitching about ISIS and the Taliban I have no idea because we act almost the same as they do.

We appear to agree on this, Hawkeye,
but I have a hunch that our point of vu
is in the minority.

I have never minded being in the minority so long as I am right. The long reach of the morality minders in this society as well as others these days is really starting to piss me off.

WE ARE NOT GODS!

MOST OF US ARE NOT LOOKING FOR NOR DO WE NEED OTHER FOLKS TO RUN OUR LIVES FOR US!

Far too many people have forgotten these things.

" there but for the grace of God go I"

One mistake in this time on Earth should entitle the collective to ruin our lives, to inflict massive long term suffering upon us??!!

No way, this is wrong because it shows a complete lack of empathy or compassion for our fellow sinners....we get on our high horses and pretend that there is no way we would ever commit such sin because we are better humans so go ahead a beat the tar out of THEM!

This is abuse powered by delusion, it is proof of how stupid and cruel we have become as a group.

We used to be better.

In terms of domestic violence,
shud ball players be held to higher standards than the rest of us,
in terms of job security ???????

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/leslie-marshall/2014/09/09/ray-rices-nfl-suspension-is-a-warning-to-domestic-abusers

No doubt this is why it is OK to disregard her wishes and hurt her family now......she was " stupid" and did not live her life according to the wishes of the minders.

I agree with the comment supposedly made by Joan Rivers. At the first sign of abuse, which is usually verbal, followed down the road, by intense physical abuse,the woman involved should run out the door .

She then should march to nearest gun shop, buy a gun and become a master of it's use. If the abuser approaches her and attempts to hurt her or her children/family, she should pull out her gun, aim it and let the bastard have it in the heart and the groin, till he stops breathing and stops bleeding.

That will end the abuse, once and for all.

Once a woman gives in on any verbal/physical abuse issue with a male ( husband or not ), the stage is set for further abuse, which too often leads to the murder of the woman.

I imagine he had a morals clause in his contract and the team owners felt that his actions would negatively effect their business so they cut him loose.

Should a business owner have the right to fire an employee who damages their brand? I think so.

My employer would never consider firing someone over a crime that did not impact their work performance and I think that is true for most employers. I think the one place where that might not be true is the entertainment business and that is what football is. The NFL was given a lot of grief because the penalty for marijuana use was much greater than the penalty for spouse abuse. That would never happen (the grief part) outside the entertainment industry.

Most organizations and businesses have reputations they want to protect. That is why they have rules/moral codes, ethics, etc. If a member of an organization or employee does something or is involved is something that can be deemed by most of society or their customers using your own words (and I imagine the majority of society) as despicable, this impacts the reputation of the organization or business as a whole. That is why the NFL has decided to invoke such punishment.

Should they or not invoke morals on their players? To me, the organization as long as it within the parameters of the law, can invoke pretty much any moral rules on their players that they want -- hey some teams will invoke curfew on their players; one Christian college made players promise they would not engage in pre-maritial sex -- if you know the rules, then you as a player decide if you are capable of living within the rules or understand you may be fired. You want to sell a product, then you need customers to buy it -- if customers feel your company or organization does not meet your moral code, they may decide against buying your product.

Honestly, I think if the the NFL could hide it, they would and keep this player. But it is the impact that the fans have that pushes the hand in a sense. Think of other businesses or organizations...many businesses have a Code of Ethics. They want customers to feel the business has ethics and is morally a good place - it is good business sense.

Plus keeping Rice around risks not just ticket sales and sales of his jersey, it risks the sales of all of the merchandise sold re the other players on the team. A team situation is different from an office; the other players' abilities to bring in $$ can also be affected.

Exactly. Rice's real job is to put butts in the seats and eyeballs on the TV screens. That is where his off the fields activities get him into trouble. On the flip side, this kind of controversy probably increases TV viewing and fan participation if only to boo him. I think the reality is that the millionaires who run these teams don't want the hassle of answering questions every week and Rice can be replaced easily enough.

He is a scumbag for beating up a woman the way he did, but being fired for that is simply wrong.

His job is to play football to the best of his ability...and if he is doing that, he is doing what he should be doing for the pay he is getting.

This crap about bringing dishonor to the sport is nonsense. Football particularly has brought more dishonor to itself by allowing (until recently) concussed players to be returned to action much too early.

And I repeat...Rice is a scumbag for what did.

"bringing dishonor upon itelf" is just what the Rice story is all about.
Many businesses have mprals clauses in their employee contracts (I did in my first employment and then I merely copied that for my own company).

These coddled athletes need not be "rewarded" for going off their tracks. We make way too many excuses for them (as most of your responses seem to bear out).

Pete Rose sits it out for doing something not even visible on the same radar screen as Mike Vick and Rice (and many many others) and he sits and sits. Rice can beat his wife viciously and you make doofus excuses for it.


CHECK PLEASE!

Youre just pissed cause you have him on your fantasy lineup. Haw Haw.

Well the NFL is a company that maintains a particular image and because players of that company are extensions of that image, the NFL wants to maintain a healthy image therefore players are bound by particular codes of conduct. This is different than your average American job where, the company you work for, may not care what you do outside the company so long as anything you do privately, does not interfere with your continued employment with that company.

But because the National Football League is televised and has an image, the NFL wants to maintain an image of entertainment and family friendly. This is a situation where the league doesn't want to appear to be "silent" on issues that deal with domestic violence or drugs. I think also the league doesn't want to seem at odds with "female sensitivity" regarding gender related violence. Also, I'm considering the social perspective on this issue concerning domestic violence.

When Beyonce's sister attacked Jay-Z people applauded Jay-Z's restraint but there wasn't much backlash towards Beyonce's sister. But in this situation regarding Rice, there was much discussion on why men shouldn't hit women and how Rice is much bigger and stronger than her and therefore he should've shown restraint. So there are some societal double standards in the perception of domestic violence and responsive violence (or self-defense). i think the NFL wants to take a stance where it does not want to appear like it condones violence by not responding to the issue.

BTW I made a thread about this and didn't see this one.

In addition, the hiring or firing of a player is not a moral issue, this has more to do with the social politics of being an employee of a large company.

Actually, I am not up to the work required for fantasy football. The only fantasy football stuff in which I engage has to do with some of the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders.

Anyway...since I posted that remark...I have thought about it a bit...and I have been considering the matters that you raised.

Something has got to be done about the out of control athletes...and I guess this kind of thing is part of that.

I'll give it more consideration, FM. Thanks for your comments.

Well frank this is perhaps the issue where you and I disagree.

What Rice did is wrong but these are the societal issues that seem to be pervasive. Domestic Violence is wrong period, however there is this ideology of "men should walk away and not hit women" but its ok for women to be violent because of them being the weaker sex." I tend to think this type of mindset seems to be filtered through society's psyche as being an unwritten rule.

Was Rice wrong? Absolutely. Is he a scumbag? I wouldn't know, I don't know the man personally.