PDA

View Full Version : McKinnie officially suspended


TitleTown088
08-29-2008, 05:51 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3560135

Minnesota Vikings offensive lineman Bryant McKinnie has been suspended without pay for the team's first four regular-season games for violating the NFL's personal conduct policy.

McKinnie's suspension begins Saturday, the league announced Friday

vidae
08-29-2008, 06:13 PM
Wow. Four games. That's going to hurt the Vikings.

TheBuffaloBills
08-29-2008, 06:25 PM
I am going to release AP from my fantasy team

Vikes99ej
08-29-2008, 06:28 PM
Against four teams with awesome defensive ends; Green Bay, Indianapolis, Carolina, and Tennessee. Damn.

TitleTown088
08-29-2008, 07:18 PM
Against four teams with awesome defensive ends; Green Bay, Indianapolis, Carolina, and Tennessee. Damn.

Yeah, that's not going to help the queens to much. Here's to seeing what Hicks can do, eh?

He back up his Hicks, right?

The Dynasty
08-29-2008, 07:24 PM
Yeah, that's not going to help the queens to much. Here's to seeing what Hicks can do, eh?

He back up his Hicks, right?

Yes Hicks will take his place for the four games. Maybe it might work out...lol. Im sort of sick of seeing McKinnie just get burned on Pass Plays. He is an asset on Running though.

CC.SD
08-29-2008, 07:35 PM
Get Jared Allen to play LT.





He'd do it, too.

Menardo75
08-29-2008, 07:45 PM
Did he have another prostitution party or something?

Geo
08-29-2008, 07:48 PM
Before this, I thought the Vikes wouldn't enter their Week 8 bye with a winning record.

BRAVEHEART
08-29-2008, 07:54 PM
Good news, hopefully the vikes will stumble a bit and lose two to three games.

TheBuffaloBills
08-29-2008, 09:05 PM
Few, looks like the Bills made the right pick taking Mike Williams (OT Texas) instead of Bryant Mckinnie with our first pick in that draft.

yourfavestoner
08-29-2008, 09:06 PM
Fuhrer Goodell strikes again.

TitleTown088
08-29-2008, 09:19 PM
Fuhrer Goodell strikes again.

Nice rolls.

thefridge15
08-30-2008, 11:18 PM
Brandon Marshall


Off-field incidents in NFL career:

- Domestic Violence (2007)
- DUI (2007)
- Traffic Violations (2008)


2008 PUNISHMENT:

3 game suspension, appealed and reduced to 1 game.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Chris Henry


Off-field incidents in NFL career:

- Marijuana possession (2005)
- Gun charges (including concealment and aggravated assault with a firearm) (2006)
- DUI (2006)
- Substance abuse (suspended 2 games in 2006) (2006)
- Providing alcohol to minors (2007)

At this point, Goodell suspended Henry for 8 games. And this came with a "stern warning" that future misconduct may mean the end of his NFL career. Goodell later gave him permission to practice full with his team, and his suspension was lifted.

But wait, Henry wasn't done yet...

- Arrested for violating probation (2007)
- Allegedly punched an 18 year-old man, and to have thrown a beer bottle through his car window. I haven't mentioned all of his alleged charges, but this one I do mention because the Bengals released Henry a day after this arrest.


2008 PUNISHMENT:

4 game suspension (same as McKinnie)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Now...




Bryant McKinnie


Off-field incidents in NFL career:

- Misdemeanor disorderly conduct (2005)
- Aggravated battery (2008)


2008 PUNISHMENT:

4 game suspension (appealed and Goodell refused to reduce)


This suspension is a bunch of ********.

mqtirishfan
08-30-2008, 11:49 PM
This suspension is a bunch of ********.

I love how you throw that 4 games comment onto Henry, as if the 8 game suspension should be ignored.

bored of education
08-31-2008, 09:58 AM
Adrian Peterson's career is over! ;)

Prince 561
08-31-2008, 01:49 PM
aggravated battery is:

use of a deadly weapon

battery in which serious bodily injury occurs, and

battery against a child, woman or police officer.


so you're right, it's totally ridiculous that even though it's a FAR worse crime than anything marshall's done, mckinnie is suspended 3 more games. what a crock! i mean, he's only had TWO offenses to brandon's THREE.

:rolleyes:

way to think through a worthless argument. or not.

He has a point. Why should McKinnie get a longer suspension than Marshall?

BlindSite
08-31-2008, 06:25 PM
Bryant McKinnie


Off-field incidents in NFL career:

- Misdemeanor disorderly conduct (2005)
- Aggravated battery (200


2008 PUNISHMENT:

4 game suspension (appealed and Goodell refused to reduce)


This suspension is a bunch of ********.

According to a Miami police report obtained by The Herald, McKinnie spit on the face of a bouncer, 32-year-old Eric Otero, shoved a camera phone into his face and then picked up a heavy pole and slammed it over Otero's head. This occurred in front of a large crowd.


The trouble had started when Otero attempted to eject the 6-8, 335-pound McKinnie from the club. As he was being taken out of the establishment, McKinnie yelled obscenities and spit in Otero's face according to police. Otero said if McKinnie left, he would not press charges.
The police then saw McKinnie entering a nearby strip club. But the Herald reported that, at about 6:30 a.m., police were again called to Club Space. Police found McKinnie "in the middle of a large crowd, throwing punches and again yelling obscenities" at Otero, the police report said. The police told him to stop, but he refused and boarded a charter bus. The driver of the bus was ordered not to leave.


The guy goes to a club, gets drunk, is asked to leave and he turns, spits in someone's face and then proceeds to hit him over the head with a pole...


He later returns to the scene and attacks the man again.

When he's told to stop he ignores police.


4 games for aggravated Battery is fair. Its far worse than having some THC in your piss.

mqtirishfan
08-31-2008, 06:58 PM
He has a point. Why should McKinnie get a longer suspension than Marshall?

Because McKinnie ******* attacked a man.

MetSox17
08-31-2008, 07:13 PM
It's all a matter of opinion, really.

I happen to think a DUI is a far more a disgusting offense than aggravated assault. Not to say that A.A is something that should go unpunished, but if you're gonna use the "he hit a man with a pole" argument, then you can make the "he was a car accident and deaths waiting to happen" one.

mqtirishfan
08-31-2008, 07:23 PM
It's all a matter of opinion, really.

I happen to think a DUI is a far more a disgusting offense than aggravated assault. Not to say that A.A is something that should go unpunished, but if you're gonna use the "he hit a man with a pole" argument, then you can make the "he was a car accident and deaths waiting to happen" one.

So you think an act that can harm another is worse than an act that is intended to harm another?

Paranoidmoonduck
08-31-2008, 07:26 PM
I happen to think a DUI is a far more a disgusting offense than aggravated assault. Not to say that A.A is something that should go unpunished, but if you're gonna use the "he hit a man with a pole" argument, then you can make the "he was a car accident and deaths waiting to happen" one.

That's like saying that carrying a loaded gun is worse than stabbing someone.

BlindSite
08-31-2008, 07:38 PM
Or that firing on a firing range is worse than stabbing someone.

thefridge15
08-31-2008, 07:50 PM
you have to combine them IMO:

McKinnie gets into a brutal fight with a dude at a bar, and weeny dips with some hookers on a boat

Marshall beats an ex-girlfriend, and drives drunk, and traffic violations (not a big deal, but cant be completely ignored)

I would say they deserve equal time, certainly not 4:1

Also it cant be ignored that the guy that McKinnie "harmed" didnt go to the hospital, and no injuries were written on the police report...

BlindSite
08-31-2008, 08:19 PM
I've been bashed before by a drunk, I didn't go to hospital and the cops didn't fill out any injuries on my police report either. Doesn't mean I wasn't jumped walking out of a bar and that the guy that did it didn't deserve his punishment.

McKinne broke a serious law here and deserves the suspension. He needs to shape up he's 28 years old, he shouldn't be out bashing people in clubs.

mqtirishfan
08-31-2008, 09:03 PM
Also it cant be ignored that the guy that McKinnie "harmed" didnt go to the hospital, and no injuries were written on the police report...

Simply luck. McKinnie bashed the dude with a pole.

thefridge15
08-31-2008, 09:31 PM
Look I'd be the first to tell you that McKinnie needs to get his act together, and would also tell you that he deserves to be suspended. But his 4 game suspension doesnt follow previous suspensions handed out by commisioner Goodell, and his appeal was shot down the second it was brought up.

BlindSite
08-31-2008, 09:34 PM
So you don't like the idea of 4 games because no one else has been suspended for battery yet?

mqtirishfan
08-31-2008, 09:40 PM
Look I'd be the first to tell you that McKinnie needs to get his act together, and would also tell you that he deserves to be suspended. But his 4 game suspension doesnt follow previous suspensions handed out by commisioner Goodell, and his appeal was shot down the second it was brought up.

Perhaps there is a reason for the suspension. Something along the lines of the league not wanting to be associated with gigantic players beating on people.

thefridge15
08-31-2008, 09:40 PM
I dont like the idea of 4 games because it isnt paralled with other suspensions handed out.

thefridge15
08-31-2008, 09:42 PM
Perhaps there is a reason for the suspension. Something along the lines of the league not wanting to be associated with gigantic players beating on people.

that is the most ridiculous thing Ive ever heard, the league doesnt want to be known as a bunch of steriod users or pot smokers either

BlindSite
08-31-2008, 09:45 PM
They suspended those guys. You're just upset that your useless QB isn't going to have his blindside covered for 4 games and you don't think that's fair.

mqtirishfan
08-31-2008, 09:45 PM
that is the most ridiculous thing Ive ever heard, the league doesnt want to be known as a bunch of steriod users or pot smokers either

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe the League considers violence to be a bigger violation of the personal conduct code than smoking weed? What is there to appeal on McKinnie's behalf?

thefridge15
08-31-2008, 09:48 PM
Has it ever occurred to you that maybe the League considers violence to be a bigger violation of the personal conduct code than smoking weed?

not at all, and you think the violence is the biggest concern of the league?

I would say guns should be, but here Chris Henry gets a gun charge, and multiple DUI's, and providing minors with alcohol, and whatever else. And he gets 4 games! (Should be more, or McKinnies should be less one of the two)

thefridge15
08-31-2008, 09:49 PM
They suspended those guys. You're just upset that your useless QB isn't going to have his blindside covered for 4 games and you don't think that's fair.

Im saying the amount of games in the suspensions arent paralleled very well with each other. Thats my beef.

BlindSite
09-01-2008, 01:33 AM
They're different crimes, and recognized differently in the law, therefore they shouldn't parallel.

thefridge15
09-01-2008, 11:31 AM
but if you ask me amount of crimes combined with severity of crimes should give Chris Henry double the game McKinnie has.

PACKmanN
09-01-2008, 11:57 AM
not at all, and you think the violence is the biggest concern of the league?

I would say guns should be, but here Chris Henry gets a gun charge, and multiple DUI's, and providing minors with alcohol, and whatever else. And he gets 4 games! (Should be more, or McKinnies should be less one of the two)

Do you know what both guns and poles, used by force, are consider? weapons. They can both seriously injury or kill someone. Your lucky it wasn't half the season like what Tank Johnson got.

MetSox17
09-01-2008, 12:32 PM
So you think an act that can harm another is worse than an act that is intended to harm another?

Yes, when you take into consideration the amount of damage that you can do with the acts. Had he really gotten into the guy bashing him like everyone claims he has, i doubt he'd just be getting charged with aggravated assault.

Being in an accident while under the influence leads to death a huge chunk of the time. He can damage properties, and is a risk on the road. He just hit a guy with a pole a time or two. Like i said, had it been more serious, he would have been charged with a more serious crime.

That's like saying that carrying a loaded gun is worse than stabbing someone.

And no, that's nothing like your comparison.

It's more like giving someone a loaded gun in a room full of people, while he's completely incoherent as to what he's doing.

rchrd
09-01-2008, 06:23 PM
I dont know if the coaching staff were so comfortable with 'I cant even start at my natural position' Hicks covering at LT that they didnt feel they needed to look elsewhere, but it seems odd we did so little to cover for this eventuality. It was obvious for ages he was going to get some kind of ban and we did absolutely nothing (seemingly) to prepare for it.

Oh well, at least people will stop hyping us up when we start 0-4. /Silver lining.

Paranoidmoonduck
09-01-2008, 08:46 PM
It's more like giving someone a loaded gun in a room full of people, while he's completely incoherent as to what he's doing.

Why is that more accurate? Driving under the influence doesn't mean he was catatonic behind the wheel, nor does it mean he was surrounded by cute children holding puppies. It means he was too drunk to reasonably be driving and no one was hurt as a result. In the act of going somewhere he posed a potential risk to some unknown person.

McKinnie posed an actualized and intended risk when he swung a ******* pole into a guy.

There's no ******* comparison whatsoever. One guy caused damage and one guy didn't. We don't punish people for crimes they may have committed.

PackerLegend
09-01-2008, 09:12 PM
Pretty sure this is a case of mistaking identities and All-day should be the 1 suspended :D Ok seriously I think he deserves the punishment and hopefully he learns from it.

thefridge15
09-01-2008, 10:40 PM
Do you know what both guns and poles, used by force, are consider? weapons. They can both seriously injury or kill someone. Your lucky it wasn't half the season like what Tank Johnson got.

Thank the lord a packer fan came to rescue this thread...

Twiddler
09-01-2008, 10:51 PM
Thank the lord a packer fan came to rescue this thread...

And you're a Viking fan defending your player. Don't act like you're special and not biased in this case.

BlindSite
09-01-2008, 10:55 PM
Yeah, someone with a Sidney Rice thread is unhappy their starting LT got a 4 game suspension, what a shock!

MetSox17
09-02-2008, 09:14 AM
Why is that more accurate? Driving under the influence doesn't mean he was catatonic behind the wheel, nor does it mean he was surrounded by cute children holding puppies. It means he was too drunk to reasonably be driving and no one was hurt as a result. In the act of going somewhere he posed a potential risk to some unknown person.

McKinnie posed an actualized and intended risk when he swung a ******* pole into a guy.

There's no ******* comparison whatsoever. One guy caused damage and one guy didn't. We don't punish people for crimes they may have committed.

Why is it more accurate? Because the fact that he was arrested for driving under the influence, explains, by law, that he was too impaired to drive a vehicle. So the fact that no one was hurt should be reason enough to let him off the hook with a softer penalty? That's seriously one of the stupidest arguments i've ever heard. That's why stuff like that happens. Everyone is so easy to give them a pass because everything turned out fine. Are you gonna wait until a superstar runs his F-350 into a family in an SUV to penalize DUI's enough to where they'll actually be careful with what they're doing?

MetSox17
09-02-2008, 09:16 AM
well we should certainly suspend every NFL players who's ever been drunk, just in case someone ever loaded a gun and put them into a room full of people. i mean, think of the children.

Yeah, or in case someone starts operating a vehicle that can cause just as much damage should they hit someone with it, which is a lot more likely when they're over the legal limit on alcohol or on drugs.

But no, let's wait till someone actually gets in an accident to make strict policies and look like the tough sheriff commissioner. :rolleyes:

mqtirishfan
09-02-2008, 10:02 AM
Are you gonna wait until a superstar runs his F-350 into a family in an SUV to penalize DUI's enough to where they'll actually be careful with what they're doing?

Ohhhh. People drink and drive because they aren't afraid of Goodell coming down on them as hard as he does on other people.

MetSox17
09-02-2008, 10:10 AM
Ohhhh. People drink and drive because they aren't afraid of Goodell coming down on them as hard as he does on other people.

We're talking about NFL players, genius, not Joe citizen. If you threaten them with their livelihood, they just might eventually learn.

mqtirishfan
09-02-2008, 10:13 AM
We're talking about NFL players, genius, not Joe citizen. If you threaten them with their livelihood, they just might eventually learn.

Ohhhh. NFL players drink and drive because they aren't afraid of Goodell coming down on them as hard as he does on other NFL players.

MetSox17
09-02-2008, 10:18 AM
Ohhhh. NFL players drink and drive because they aren't afraid of Goodell coming down on them as hard as he does on other NFL players.

Your ignorance is baffling. If you make it a strictly punishable offense, it just might deter players from going out like morons driving drunk.

Just because that might help the problem, doesn't mean that it's the basis of the initial one. Stop posting crap that makes you sound like an even bigger fool than you're already thought of.

Prince 561
09-02-2008, 12:12 PM
i don't approve of drunk driving in any way, in fact, the last time this argument was brought up, i think i was very clear that anyone who drinks and drives is a scumbag and should be guilty of attempted murder.

that said, legally, there's a massive difference between "intent to do harm" and "DID harm".

i'm shocked no one's brought up the obvious counter-example (in the NFL world).

Ha, DUI is the 5-yard facemasking penalty.

Dex187
09-02-2008, 02:57 PM
you have to combine them IMO:

McKinnie gets into a brutal fight with a dude at a bar, and weeny dips with some hookers on a boat

Marshall beats an ex-girlfriend, and drives drunk, and traffic violations (not a big deal, but cant be completely ignored)

I would say they deserve equal time, certainly not 4:1

Also it cant be ignored that the guy that McKinnie "harmed" didnt go to the hospital, and no injuries were written on the police report...

1) You can't get in trouble for traffic violations so that shouldn't even be relevant.

2) You can't get suspended for your first dui in the league, but its still relevant in this case because of other doings.

3) We can call Marshall a wife beater, but really we don't KNOW if its all true. The ONLY thing Marshall has been charged with here is false imprisonment that got reduced to something else for blocking a taxi cab with his car. And that was like a year ago.


So, you can argue fo or against what marshall's suspension was, but those are the facts.

MetSox17
09-02-2008, 04:39 PM
i don't approve of drunk driving in any way, in fact, the last time this argument was brought up, i think i was very clear that anyone who drinks and drives is a scumbag and should be guilty of attempted murder.

that said, legally, there's a massive difference between "intent to do harm" and "DID harm".

i'm shocked no one's brought up the obvious counter-example (in the NFL world).

Okay, i understand what you're saying, but Goodell hasn't always based his suspensions off of legality. For example, after numerous run ins, Chris Henry and Adam Jones got suspended for crimes they were accused of. In the end they were both cleared of charges, yet Goodell had no issue suspending them.

That to me shows that he's basing his suspensions off of public image and perception. Not necessarily by the book.

All i'm saying is that a DUI is a despicable and selfish act, and it should be punished harder than it currently is. If it were me, i'd suspend a guy that got a DUI longer than one who got arrested for assault. Call me crazy, i guess.

mqtirishfan
09-02-2008, 05:47 PM
All i'm saying is that a DUI is a despicable and selfish act, and it should be punished harder than it currently is. If it were me, i'd suspend a guy that got a DUI longer than one who got arrested for assault. Call me crazy, i guess.

I guess I'm just hung up on drinking and driving being worse than what McKinnie did. What if McKinnie had hit the guy in the temple while he was bashing him with a pole?

BlindSite
09-02-2008, 08:00 PM
Okay, i understand what you're saying, but Goodell hasn't always based his suspensions off of legality. For example, after numerous run ins, Chris Henry and Adam Jones got suspended for crimes they were accused of. In the end they were both cleared of charges, yet Goodell had no issue suspending them.

That to me shows that he's basing his suspensions off of public image and perception. Not necessarily by the book.

All i'm saying is that a DUI is a despicable and selfish act, and it should be punished harder than it currently is. If it were me, i'd suspend a guy that got a DUI longer than one who got arrested for assault. Call me crazy, i guess.

Its crazy for someone to hold the notion that the potential to do harm is worse than doing harm... Its insane.

MetSox17
09-03-2008, 10:20 AM
Its crazy for someone to hold the notion that the potential to do harm is worse than doing harm... Its insane.

Well that's my point of view on it, i'm not here to agree with everything, i don't expect you to either.

But before you talk, read everything that was said. It's slowly going back to stage one (the argument). I'm done discussing this.

Paranoidmoonduck
09-03-2008, 12:20 PM
Why is it more accurate? Because the fact that he was arrested for driving under the influence, explains, by law, that he was too impaired to drive a vehicle. So the fact that no one was hurt should be reason enough to let him off the hook with a softer penalty? That's seriously one of the stupidest arguments i've ever heard. That's why stuff like that happens. Everyone is so easy to give them a pass because everything turned out fine. Are you gonna wait until a superstar runs his F-350 into a family in an SUV to penalize DUI's enough to where they'll actually be careful with what they're doing?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Do you actually think we should treat all DUI offenders like they've hurt someone? Do you actually think that a drunk Marshall who is intending to go somewhere poses a bigger threat than a drunk McKinnie who likes to hit people on the head with poles?

Could Marshall have caused something horrible to happen? Yes. Did he? No. Should we treat him like he had? No, it makes no sense and it completely undermines the idea behind the American legal system to do so.

mqtirishfan
09-03-2008, 04:36 PM
Could Marshall have caused something horrible to happen? Yes. Did he? No. Should we treat him like he had? No, it makes no sense and it completely undermines the idea behind the American legal system to do so.

Exactly. Had Marshall hit someone, he would have gotten in serious trouble. If the fear of vehicular homicide isn't enough to deter someone from drinking and driving, why should a suspension?

MetSox17
09-03-2008, 04:42 PM
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Do you actually think we should treat all DUI offenders like they've hurt someone? Do you actually think that a drunk Marshall who is intending to go somewhere poses a bigger threat than a drunk McKinnie who likes to hit people on the head with poles?

Could Marshall have caused something horrible to happen? Yes. Did he? No. Should we treat him like he had? No, it makes no sense and it completely undermines the idea behind the American legal system to do so.

Already been discussed. It's pretty clear that Goodell doesn't go by the American legal system.

Okay, i understand what you're saying, but Goodell hasn't always based his suspensions off of legality. For example, after numerous run ins, Chris Henry and Adam Jones got suspended for crimes they were accused of. In the end they were both cleared of charges, yet Goodell had no issue suspending them.

That to me shows that he's basing his suspensions off of public image and perception. Not necessarily by the book.

BlindSite
09-03-2008, 06:38 PM
Well that's my point of view on it, i'm not here to agree with everything, i don't expect you to either.

But before you talk, read everything that was said. It's slowly going back to stage one (the argument). I'm done discussing this.

You do realise someone can be done for DUI if they wake up after a night of drinking and go for a drive. There can be no residual effects of the booze but still blow over the limit. That's not as bad as someone pounding my head with a pole. No matter how you spin it.

badmotorfinger
09-04-2008, 02:57 PM
Wow, I've never seen so many people jump out to defend DUIs... You folks wouldn't be from Wisconsin would you?

McKinnie
Charge: Assult, Possible injury results: sever or critical injury, Actual result: no injurys sustained


Marshal
Charge: DUI, Possible injury results: Death, Actual result: no injurys sustained



both should have been punished the same.

badmotorfinger
09-04-2008, 03:58 PM
what a disingenuous argument. are you honestly making the completely ludicrous suggestion that mckinnie couldn't have killed anyone by hitting them over the head with a pole? :rolleyes: way to think that one through.

been a while since I've seen a "death by pole" obituary in the paper..

either way, does that change the point?.. no.. way to think that one through..:rolleyes:

thefridge15
09-04-2008, 10:11 PM
the big beef for me with a DUI is once you've drove drunk and killed someone, its way too late and thats why it needs to be strictly enforced

nobody cares about the DUI's that dont get anybody hurt, but once they do they want the person crucified, hypocritical IMO

Bruce Banner
09-04-2008, 10:17 PM
How does a thread, who's only purpose is to inform, turn into this?

thefridge15
09-04-2008, 10:24 PM
How does a thread, who's only purpose is to inform, turn into this?

Not trying to accuse anyone of anything, but alot of you guys are major thread nazis and if the discussion turns into this then so be it, if it wouldnt have you know this thread would be on page 5 with 6 comments.

Bruce Banner
09-04-2008, 10:26 PM
Not trying to accuse anyone of anything, but alot of you guys are major thread nazis and if the discussion turns into this then so be it, if it wouldnt have you know this thread would be on page 5 with 6 comments.
Example
The Buccaneers are converting to a 3-4 from a 4-3

This could be a nice discussion that could go on for pages.

This however, should not be, but it is your right to do so.

thefridge15
09-04-2008, 10:29 PM
why isnt this understandable, we're discussing the trend of suspensions in the league and what should be more punishable than other crimes? If you have a problem with the thread dont read it....

Bruce Banner
09-04-2008, 10:33 PM
why isnt this understandable, we're discussing the trend of suspensions in the league and what should be more punishable than other crimes? If you have a problem with the thread dont read it....

The streak of crime the league has taken on isn't a surprise and has been discussed ad nauseum.

Carry on.

thefridge15
09-04-2008, 10:39 PM
The streak of crime the league has taken on isn't a surprise and has been discussed ad nauseum.

Carry on.

If it had been discussed so much then so many people wouldnt have put their say into this thread, and thanks for allowing us to carry on.

Bruce Banner
09-04-2008, 10:43 PM
If it had been discussed so much then so many people wouldnt have put their say into this thread, and thanks for allowing us to carry on.

Blech.

People think that if they keep stating their opinions, others might believe it or it may change their minds. Like politics, no one is changing their mind on these subjects. So this isn't really a discussion, its a circle of people saying the same thing over and over again expecting others to change their mind, when in reality no one is open to interpretation.

Carry on.

7-11
09-04-2008, 10:49 PM
I've driven to work on many occasions the morning after a big night, i can pretty much assure you that it was possible on more than one occasion if i was pulled over i would've blown over the legal limit. Do i think this is a good thing? Obviously not, but i can assure you my ability to drive was not diminished to a point where i was drving dangerously.

But for some reason i stop short of hitting people with poles, call me crazy but thats what i think.

crazyisme
09-04-2008, 10:57 PM
i didn't bother commenting on the "point". if you're going to argue that players should now be suspended purely on the potential of their acts to cause injury/harm/death, i'll assume that you'll next argue that every nfl player who's gotten a speeding ticket should be suspended, as it's typically a leading cause of fatal auto accidents.

but hey, i'm sure you've seen lots of "man in san diego nearly killed when drunk man in miami drove home after having two beers" obits, too. fantastically crappy argument. please start thinking before posting.


wasn't he making the exact opposite point? he was pointing out that nothing seriously happened to the guy that he hit with the pole, so he shouldnt be punished as if it had, just like nothing happened with Marshall's DUI...

maybe you should heed your own advise and think before you post...

7-11
09-04-2008, 11:00 PM
wasn't he making the exact opposite point? he was pointing out that nothing seriously happened to the guy that he hit with the pole, so he shouldnt be punished as if it had, just like nothing happened with Marshall's DUI...

maybe you should heed your own advise and think before you post...

haha, wow. just ignore me ay, been a big day

I'm still in shock that people think drink driving is worse than hitting people in the head with metal poles.

Bruce Banner
09-05-2008, 12:01 AM
it's fun when you think you've scored a point, isn't it?

The heart dropping feeling he will have after he reads your post will outweigh that much much more.

you don't know me very well.

I know you well enough to know that most of these people aren't worth your time.

Bruce Banner
09-05-2008, 12:15 AM
but it's a more useful outlet for anger than people at work or on the highway.

If it's these people you are angry at, calm down, and let the soothing effects of recognized superiority flow over you.
If there are other causes of the anger....look I'm not condoning homicide but the result leaves you with the ultimate feeling of resolution followed by an extended stay at a concrete "resort" with a friend you have never met.

badmotorfinger
09-05-2008, 09:59 AM
How does a thread, who's only purpose is to inform, turn into this?


Oh no! a discussion on a message board!... weird..

badmotorfinger
09-05-2008, 10:14 AM
i didn't bother commenting on the "point". if you're going to argue that players should now be suspended purely on the potential of their acts to cause injury/harm/death, i'll assume that you'll next argue that every nfl player who's gotten a speeding ticket should be suspended, as it's typically a leading cause of fatal auto accidents.

but hey, i'm sure you've seen lots of "man in san diego nearly killed when drunk man in miami drove home after having two beers" obits, too. fantastically crappy argument. please start thinking before posting.

lol, what is this? It was a comparison. Sorry you faild to "get it". I'm just trying to understand why exacly you're trying to protect Marshal under you wing while putting McKinney's head on a steak? Seriosly, How the **** can you expain a DUI away as something so insiginficant.

A bar fight vs a DUI. what the **** is the difference?


Oh and lets cut the "please start thinking before posting" BS... your personal attacks aren't adding any more inches to your dick than your (mod) title.

mqtirishfan
09-05-2008, 10:16 AM
the big beef for me with a DUI is once you've drove drunk and killed someone, its way too late and thats why it needs to be strictly enforced

nobody cares about the DUI's that dont get anybody hurt, but once they do they want the person crucified, hypocritical IMO

That's because we have other punishments for those cases. If he had hit a guy, he'd be charged with something other than just a DUI. It's as simple as that. If the fear of going to jail for a while due to vehicular homicide isn't enough to deter a player from driving drunk, what is?

badmotorfinger
09-05-2008, 12:46 PM
well at least you did a bang up job of defending your own worthless argument. it's cute when you try to put words in my mouth instead of defending your own god awful arguments. please point out a single instance of me saying a DUI is insignificant. can't? that's because i never even remotely implied it.

and yes, i'm protecting marshall and crucifying mckinnie. :rolleyes: that or i think it's idiotic and borderline insanity to suspend someone simply because their act had the potential to be worse than it was. please keep up.

Apparently comprehensive reading isn't one of your strong points. Defending my awful argument? WTF? You have yet to rebut my argument... Of course, according to your last paragraph; I see you agree then that Mckinnie should not have been suspended either. Results were the same in both cases.

To spell out a summary for you... One in which you can understand; There was no difference in the crime Mckinnie commited in comparison to Marshal. How that point flew over your head, I have no idea...

Dam8610
09-05-2008, 12:55 PM
To spell out a summary for you... One in which you can understand; There was no difference in the crime Mckinnie commited in comparison to Marshal. How that point flew over your head, I have no idea...

Can you give a clear victim of a DUI? I can give a clear victim of a felony assault. That would be the guy McKinnie hit in the head with a metal pipe.

badmotorfinger
09-05-2008, 12:57 PM
but hey, i'm sure you've seen lots of "man in san diego nearly killed when drunk man in miami drove home after having two beers" obits, too. fantastically crappy argument. please start thinking before posting.

Your comparison of a DUI to "having two beers" is enough implication for me.

badmotorfinger
09-05-2008, 12:59 PM
Can you give a clear victim of a DUI? .

LOL, what?? How's life under your rock? http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

FYI, the man McKinnie supposedly beat over the head with a pole suffered no injuries and required no medical attention. Boy he must have really taken it to him..:rolleyes:

Dam8610
09-05-2008, 01:15 PM
LOL, what?? How's life under your rock? http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

FYI, the man McKinnie supposedly beat over the head with a pole suffered no injuries and required no medical attention. Boy he must have really taken it to him..:rolleyes:

I didn't say "give me statistics on drunk driving fatalities", I said "Can you give a clear victim of a DUI?". Obviously in a DUI situation, no one dies, so don't throw drunk driving fatality numbers at me. As has been said, just because the crime could potentially have been worse does not mean the punishment should be increased. Felony assault does have a clear victim, that being the person assaulted.

CC.SD
09-05-2008, 01:27 PM
Little got eight games for killing somebody while driving drunk, right? He got busted driving drunk again not too long after that occurred.

Here's a link:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/rams/2004-04-26-little-charged_x.htm

I'm not getting involved in this convo too deeply, IMO this thread should be just about done. But if anybody seriously thinks that these suspensions prevent anything at all, I'd love an eighth of whatever they've got.

badmotorfinger
09-05-2008, 01:29 PM
I didn't say "give me statistics on drunk driving fatalities", I said "Can you give a clear victim of a DUI?". Obviously in a DUI situation, no one dies, so don't throw drunk driving fatality numbers at me. As has been said, just because the crime could potentially have been worse does not mean the punishment should be increased. Felony assault does have a clear victim, that being the person assaulted.

Actually deaths are pretty common in DUI arrests. That's why I threw out those statistics. If the driver didn't kill himself in the process, he most certainly will be charged with a DUI. DUI cases where no injury or where a death has occured still have their victims. They would be everyone else on the road at the time as they are all at risk when sharing the road with a drunk driver.

mqtirishfan
09-05-2008, 02:32 PM
To spell out a summary for you... One in which you can understand; There was no difference in the crime Mckinnie commited in comparison to Marshal. How that point flew over your head, I have no idea...

Yes, there is. McKinnie's crime had a victim. Marshall's did not, unless you consider the people who watched him drive erratically as victims.

badmotorfinger
09-05-2008, 02:42 PM
Yes, there is. McKinnie's crime had a victim. Marshall's did not, unless you consider the people who watched him drive erratically as victims.

....see above

mqtirishfan
09-05-2008, 07:52 PM
....see above

That's ******* stupid. There are potential victims, yes. However, there are no victims in this case.

badmotorfinger
09-05-2008, 08:01 PM
That's ******* stupid. There are potential victims, yes. However, there are no victims in this case.

Yeah, just like the "victim" in McKinnie's case.... Lame. I can tell you which case there were a lot more in danger though.

SMoore
09-05-2008, 08:37 PM
I guess I'm just hung up on drinking and driving being worse than what McKinnie did. What if McKinnie had hit the guy in the temple while he was bashing him with a pole?

That's really pointless to argue. What if Marshall hit a person walking across the street? It doesn't matter because it didn't happen. Anything could have happened in either situation so it's really pointless to bring it up.

mqtirishfan
09-05-2008, 08:37 PM
Yeah, just like the "victim" in McKinnie's case.... Lame. I can tell you which case there were a lot more in danger though.

I can tell you which caused another person more harm. McKinnie absolutely had a victim. He hit a dude with a pole. Marshall that night did not affect a single other person.

badmotorfinger
09-05-2008, 10:02 PM
I can tell you which caused another person more harm. McKinnie absolutely had a victim. He hit a dude with a pole. Marshall that night did not affect a single other person.


Harm?? what you're faililng to realize is that NOTHING HAPPENED to the dude that got hit with the pole. He was bouncing and had to use physical force to get McKinnie out of the bar. These things happen when you're a bouncer. It's his job to step in. He did his job and didn't get hurt. You guys keep insinuating that McKinnie stomped this dudes face in and made this little bouncer his ***** or .."victim".. that's ridiculous. I hope that bouncer can sleep at night..

And then you go with the Marshall defense again. WTF? Oh is see, he didn't hit anyone.. its cool. I guess you don't take that list of Drunk driving deaths as serious as me.. that's sad.

go ahead and tell me about "more harm"

badmotorfinger
09-05-2008, 10:06 PM
That's really pointless to argue. What if Marshall hit a person walking across the street? It doesn't matter because it didn't happen. Anything could have happened in either situation so it's really pointless to bring it up.

Exactly, there's "what if's" in both situations.

mqtirishfan
09-06-2008, 12:08 AM
Harm?? what you're faililng to realize is that NOTHING HAPPENED to the dude that got hit with the pole. He was bouncing and had to use physical force to get McKinnie out of the bar. These things happen when you're a bouncer. It's his job to step in. He did his job and didn't get hurt. You guys keep insinuating that McKinnie stomped this dudes face in and made this little bouncer his ***** or .."victim".. that's ridiculous. I hope that bouncer can sleep at night..

The bouncer was literally assaulted. There's absolutely no denying this. It's fact. He was a victim of aggravated assault.

And then you go with the Marshall defense again. WTF? Oh is see, he didn't hit anyone.. its cool. I guess you don't take that list of Drunk driving deaths as serious as me.. that's sad.

I hate when people drive drunk. However, as I have stated many times, if there had been a victim in Marshall's case, he'd get something more severe than a DUI. Had he hit someone and hurt them, I'd fully support giving him a lengthy suspension.

go ahead and tell me about "more harm"

Either way, Marshall did not harm anyone at all in any way, shape or form that night, and that's why he wasn't given the Pacman Jones treatment.

Paranoidmoonduck
09-06-2008, 01:01 AM
I cannot believe some of you people.

McKinnie was a belligerent and drunk 6-8 335 lbs man. He intended to hurt people and he did. Marshall was a drunk and stupid man who was trying to get home. He intended to hurt no one and he didn't. Period.

giantsfan
09-06-2008, 01:44 AM
Look I'd be the first to tell you that McKinnie needs to get his act together, and would also tell you that he deserves to be suspended. But his 4 game suspension doesnt follow previous suspensions handed out by commisioner Goodell, and his appeal was shot down the second it was brought up.

Wait, are you seriously expecting some sort of consistency or precedent when it comes to der fuhrer und seine suspensions.

giantsfan
09-06-2008, 01:48 AM
I cannot believe some of you people.

McKinnie was a belligerent and drunk 6-8 335 lbs man. He intended to hurt people and he did. Marshall was a drunk and stupid man who was trying to get home. He intended to hurt no one and he didn't. Period.

Even if you if ignore intent, Marshall was more likely to cause an accident while McKinnie, a freakin 6'8" behemoth, attacked a bouncer with a weapon. I don't see how a risky act is worse than an act which literally injures a person.

badmotorfinger
09-06-2008, 03:16 PM
<shakes head> no one was injured in McKinnie's situation either. How many times does that need to be said.

Intent or not, that doesn't qualify someones actions.

badmotorfinger
09-06-2008, 03:19 PM
IMO there's nothing different between a Bar fight and Driving drunk.

Paranoidmoonduck
09-06-2008, 03:25 PM
<shakes head> no one was injured in McKinnie's situation either. How many times does that need to be said.



No. No one pressed charges, which is entirely different. Are you telling me that getting hit in the head by a pole my a large man doesn't hurt? And when he was found later throwing punches in another club, not a single one connected?

I can't imagine the logic behind saying that being drunk and beligerent behemoth asshole deserves less punishment than trying to get home after knocking a few back and getting pulled over for it.

Gatz
09-06-2008, 04:18 PM
Wait, so assault and DUI are the same? wait, DUI may even be worse?
Wow. Really opened my eyes. Man, our laws are stupid.
Retards

badmotorfinger
09-06-2008, 04:35 PM
I can't imagine the logic behind saying that being drunk and beligerent behemoth asshole deserves less punishment than trying to get home after knocking a few back and getting pulled over for it.

The more you condone such instances is no wonder drunk driving is such a huge problem. There's just too many dumbasses that just don't get it..



You should also do a little research on the McKinnie issue. The only medical treatment for anyone at the scene was for McKinnie. It was a ******* bar fight.

yourfavestoner
09-06-2008, 05:35 PM
The more you condone such instances is no wonder drunk driving is such a huge problem. There's just too many dumbasses that just don't get it..



You should also do a little research on the McKinnie issue. The only medical treatment for anyone at the scene was for McKinnie. It was a ******* bar fight.

As zealous as you are about drunk driving, I certainly hope you've never or will never operate a vehicle after having three beers. After all, three beers is all it takes to put you over the legal limit.

Paranoidmoonduck
09-06-2008, 07:49 PM
The more you condone such instances is no wonder drunk driving is such a huge problem. There's just too many dumbasses that just don't get it.

People don't drive drunk because I or the NFL say it's alright. They do it because their judgment is impaired. All we can do is advise them not to and to punish them when their decision affects someone else negatively.

badmotorfinger
09-07-2008, 09:54 AM
Wow,.. what a terrible excuse.. "his judgment's impared". Who the **** do you suppose is responisble for that?

What I find funny; is everything you tools keep bringing up, mirror the same situation for McKinnie. After all, His judgment was impared... Is this why you guys all hang out here? You all lack this much common sense?

badmotorfinger
09-07-2008, 10:19 AM
As zealous as you are about drunk driving, I certainly hope you've never or will never operate a vehicle after having three beers. After all, three beers is all it takes to put you over the legal limit.

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/alcohol/alcohol_info7.shtml

It's should also be noted that a field sobriety test is usually failed before ever getting to a breathalizer. Of course I wouldn't expect you guys to bring up that simple fact...

Paranoidmoonduck
09-07-2008, 11:11 AM
Wow,.. what a terrible excuse.. "his judgment's impared". Who the **** do you suppose is responisble for that?

They are, which is why we make them go through all kinds of ******** to get their license back and drop a heavy fine on them.

If we are to start punishing people for what they maybe could have done perhaps, then how would you suggest going about it?

giantsfan
09-07-2008, 11:22 AM
Wow,.. what a terrible excuse.. "his judgment's impared". Who the **** do you suppose is responisble for that?

What I find funny; is everything you tools keep bringing up, mirror the same situation for McKinnie. After all, His judgment was impared... Is this why you guys all hang out here? You all lack this much common sense?

Forget excuses I just want to hear a single reasonable explanation for why risky behavior is worse than actually attacking someone.

Prince 561
09-07-2008, 11:35 AM
I think the overarching themes here are pretty self-explanatory:

1. The American justice system is a complete joke. The injustice's carried out by the system are absolutely ridiculous.

2. The NFL's conduct policy somehow manages to be even worse.

badmotorfinger
09-07-2008, 09:54 PM
Forget excuses I just want to hear a single reasonable explanation for why risky behavior is worse than actually attacking someone.


..I guess it's all in your definition of "risky behavior"

badmotorfinger
09-07-2008, 09:56 PM
hi moses.

lame.

is that why you keep coming back?


meh,.. it's a conversation piece.

giantsfan
09-07-2008, 10:54 PM
..I guess it's all in your definition of "risky behavior"

if driving impaired isn't risky behavior what is it? It's certainly not aggravated battery I'll tell you that much.

mqtirishfan
09-07-2008, 11:35 PM
I think the overarching themes here are pretty self-explanatory:

1. The American justice system is a complete joke. The injustice's carried out by the system are absolutely ridiculous.

2. The NFL's conduct policy somehow manages to be even worse.

How in the **** are those the major points?

badmotorfinger
09-08-2008, 10:22 AM
if driving impaired isn't risky behavior what is it? It's certainly not aggravated battery I'll tell you that much.

well you can call it "aggravated battery" and I'll call it for what it was; A bar fight.

badmotorfinger
09-08-2008, 10:24 AM
because some guy with utterly zero credibility said so? isn't that enough for you?

Oh please, I'm obviously not the only one with this opinion. I'm guessing you're the big man on campus that hands out these "credibility points"?

Paranoidmoonduck
09-08-2008, 11:18 AM
well you can call it "aggravated battery" and I'll call it for what it was; A bar fight.

Okay, then Marshall was just driving adventurously. See, it was all in good fun.