Jump to content
Carolina Huddle
  • Hey There!

    Please register to see fewer ads and a better viewing experience:100_Emoji_42x42:

Forty-Eight

Steelers / Browns brawl

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

That has nothing to do with it. Rudolph was completely fine and uninjured, does that make Garrett swinging his helmet like a fuging club acceptable?

It has everything to do with it.

Scenario 1: Action is taken on a protected individual.

Scenario 2: Action is taken on an unprotected individual.

The decision to act violently on a protected versus unprotected individual is different. One action is being taken that can cause serious harm. The other action being taken will not cause serious harm. If you can't see that, I can't help you process simple scenarios.

Edited by ChibCU
  • Poo 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


1 minute ago, ChibCU said:

If I'm covered from head to toe in body armor? Then the accuracy of said bullet matters not. That's the comparison here you are missing.

You didn’t answer the question. If I shoot at you and miss, does that make it okay? The body armor is the irrelevant bit in this comparison, what matters is your actions and intent.

  • Pie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ChibCU said:

It has everything to do with it.

Scenario 1: Action is taken on a protected individual.

Scenario 2: Action is taken on an unprotected individual.

The decision to act violently on a protected versus unprotected individual is different. If you can't see that, I can't help you process simple scenarios.

Well the NFL and any normal individual would not see it this way. Punishments are supposed to be meted out based on the actions and not the result. That's just ignorant. 

  • Pie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 1of10Charnatives said:

You didn’t answer the question. If I shoot at you and miss, does that make it okay? The body armor is the irrelevant bit in this comparison, what matters is your actions and intent.

You aren't conjuring up a comparative scenario to the one that unfolded last night. My post was drawing attention to the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ChibCU said:

It has everything to do with it.

Scenario 1: Action is taken on a protected individual.

Scenario 2: Action is taken on an unprotected individual.

The decision to act violently on a protected versus unprotected individual is different. If you can't see that, I can't help you process simple scenarios.

It’s not different and if YOU can’t see that, WE can’t help you understand ethics or morality.

  • Beer 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Well the NFL and any normal individual would not see it this way. Punishments are supposed to be meted out based on the actions and not the result. That's just ignorant. 

Well the entire legal system does not see it your way.

That's why there are separate levels of severity when being charged for assault. You must know this? Do you think the laws are the same for attempted murder versus actual murder. The whole judicial system is telling you that you are wrong. Just drop it.

Edited by ChibCU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ChibCU said:

You aren't conjuring up a comparative scenario to the one that unfolded last night. My post was drawing attention to the difference.

I’m making a perfectly valid comparison for purposes of the relevant point. Garrett swinging a helmet at another players head is a criminal act with criminal intent. The fact Rudolph wasn’t seriously hurt doesn’t change that. You’re also drawing a false equivalence between action that happens as part of play and this incident, which was entirely outside the bounds of play. The whistle had been blown, the p,ay was over, so drawing any comparison to hits that occur during games misses the point. 

  • Pie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

I’m making a perfectly valid comparison for purposes of the relevant point. Garrett swinging a helmet at another players head is a criminal act with criminal intent. The fact Rudolph wasn’t seriously hurt doesn’t change that. You’re also drawing a false equivalence between action that happens as part of play and this incident, which was entirely outside the bounds of play. The whistle had been blown, the p,ay was over, so drawing any comparison to hits that occur during games misses the point. 

You can debate ethics all you want. I'm basing this upon a country's entire understanding of justice and punishment. Not my personal ethical wishes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crazy situation all around. But it is Cleveland...

I will say it's rather lame Mayfield is piling on his own teammate after how harsh the media has been on him in particular as of late. That's not exactly going to help him in the locker room, especially if he keeps turning the ball over.

  • Pie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ChibCU said:

Well the entire legal system does not see it your way.

That's why there are separate levels of severity when being charged for assault. You must know this? Do you think the laws are the same for attempted murder versus actual murder. The whole judicial system is telling you that you are wrong. Just drop it.

And what part of the NFL is the hopelessly broken US judicial system? The common thread I am seeing here is that you can't support your "opinion" by using any examples related to the NFL or even sports in general. 

But, by all means, keep making yourself look foolish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ChibCU said:

Well the entire legal system does not see it your way.

That's why there are separate levels of severity when being charged for assault. You must know this? Do you think the laws are the same for attempted murder versus actual murder. The whole judicial system is telling you that you are wrong. Just drop it.

No one is asserting Rudolph was actually murdered, don’t be absurd. But assault is assault regardless of whether the victim is wearing body armor or a bikini. No one is implying the law makes no distinction of severity, but again you are drawing a false equivalence between game action and non game action.

  • Pie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ChibCU said:

You can debate ethics all you want. I'm basing this upon a country's entire understanding of justice and punishment. Not my personal ethical wishes.

Understand you are off in the weeds and have lost sight of even what the thread is about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Garrett is arrested but charges get dropped and no suit.   

I think he is suspended 10 games.  The season isn't enough for him. 

I think Pouncy gets 2 games

Lots of fines everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

baker was correct in his analysis, but he should've kept it to himself. just say "that's my dude, he made a mistake but we've got his back" or something or just pass on the question entirely. very poor leadership

  • Pie 1
  • The D 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...