Nonstopdrivel
12 years ago
If it's obviously wrong, then why does it need to be made into a crime? And why does the government need to punish it?

Committing adultery is wrong. That doesn't mean the government needs to get involved.
UserPostedImage
nerdmann
  • nerdmann
  • 100% (Exalted)
  • Premier Member
12 years ago

If it's obviously wrong, then why does it need to be made into a crime? And why does the government need to punish it?

Committing adultery is wrong. That doesn't mean the government needs to get involved.

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel 



Intentionally injuring someone is already a crime. I'd look closer at this to see if there was an effort to rig games via injury.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
Nonstopdrivel
12 years ago
Yes, except that if a sport has been legally ruled a full-contact sport, there is no liability or injuries sustained in the course of a game, at least not in Wisconsin. That is why cheerleading injury claims are dismissed in Wisconsin courts -- the sport was ruled a full-contact sport.
UserPostedImage
Porforis
  • Porforis
  • 100% (Exalted)
  • Veteran Member
12 years ago

If it's obviously wrong, then why does it need to be made into a crime? And why does the government need to punish it?

Committing adultery is wrong. That doesn't mean the government needs to get involved.

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel 



That logic in and of itself can be used to argue that nothing should be a crime.
zombieslayer
12 years ago

Intentionally injuring someone is already a crime. I'd look closer at this to see if there was an effort to rig games via injury.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 



Yes, it is rigging games if you intentionally physically knock out the key players. Imagine if opposing teams tried to take out Joe Montana and Jerry Rice via injury in the 80s. The turn outs would have been very different.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
Wade
  • Wade
  • 100% (Exalted)
  • Veteran Member
12 years ago

to be fair i was irritated reading that as well, until i read this:

“After consulting with Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy and Crime Subcommittee Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse, I will convene a hearing to explore the prevalence of this bounty practice and determine whether existing sports bribery laws should be expanded to include a prohibition on bounties.”

and this:

“Let’s be real basic about it here,” Senator Durbin told Howard Fendrich of the Associated Press. “If this activity were taking place off of a sporting field, away from a court, nobody would have a second thought [about whether it's wrong]. ‘You mean, someone paid you to go out and hurt someone?’

both are pretty good points as to why the government is considered getting involved

Originally Posted by: gbguy20 



Yes and no.

Yes in the sense that the feds now get involved in anything they think is worth getting involved with.

No in the sense that this should be a federal matter. If we're talking about anti-trust law, that's one thing; its sort of the classic justification for legislative intervention, i.e., the commerce clause of Article I.

However, assault and the solicitation of same -- these are matters of criminal and/or tort law, two areas that historically belong to the states. Federal courts hear some of these, but when they do they tend to find and apply the state law to apply. Only if there is some "federal question" (e.g. antitrust, treason, whatever), is the decision going to be made using federal statutes.

Assault is a funny thing. It can be a tort (a wrong against an individual), or it can be a wrong against the state (small-s, not large-S State of Minnesota). Federal question subject-matter jurisdiction in tort comes only if there is a individual right under federal law (e.g., a law requiring compensation for a "civil rights" violation). Federal criminal law jurisdiction lies similarly, e.g. for treason, sedition, assaulting the President of the United States, etc.

But there is no general federal law either imposing liability for the tort of assault or providing punishment for the crime of assault. There are some specific assaults that have been made federal crimes (e.g., assaulting certain fed official). (The Uniform Code of Military Justice, part of federal law, also has provisions for assault.) But most have not. Most assault remains a matter of state law. And should.

I'm not even sure such a law would pass constitutional muster. It certainly wouldn't if the Ninth and Tenth Amendments had any respect remaining at all. But even recognizing that the courts will likely continue to ignore those two amendments' plain meaning, I think bringing garden-variety assault under Article I is going to bring major objection.

Could the Saints' activities be considered criminal? Yes. But that's for states (or federal courts applying state law) to decide. It's simply not a federal matter.

Or shouldn't be.

If the Moronable Senator Durbin thinks he needs to get involved, he needs to do it by constitutional amendment. Hah!

Provisional rule #64: If it's said by a politico in a committee room, it's ignorant, moronic, wrong, or some combination of the three.




And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Wade
  • Wade
  • 100% (Exalted)
  • Veteran Member
12 years ago

If it's obviously wrong, then why does it need to be made into a crime? And why does the government need to punish it?

Committing adultery is wrong. That doesn't mean the government needs to get involved.

Nonstopdrivel wrote:



Because people continue to forget (or never learned) that there's a difference between a tort and a crime, of course.

Torts are wrongs done to individuals. Remedy: lawsuit by the individual wronged.
Crimes are wrongs done to the state or, if you prefer wishy-washy Rousseauian babble, to "society." Remedy for crime: prosecution by representative of the state (e.g., the county, the State or federal Attorney-General).

Tort - lawsuit - individual. Crime - prosecution - state.

This doesn't need law school to understand.

Rourke's analogy to adultery is nearly spot on here. By my theology, adultery is a third category (a wrong done to God). But most people, even most Christians, don't seem to get that notion. But insofar as adultery is a wrong against "humans", it is a wrong done to individuals -- the spouse of the adulterer, or even one of the adulterers. It is not a wrong against society. It may be a sin when someone lusts after a person known to be married (I have to admit I wish it wasn't, since this is a sin I continue to commit far too often), but sinfulness does not equate to criminal liability.

Or at least it shouldn't.

At most it should bring civil liability. Which, what do you know, it sometimes does. Depending on the state involved: a finding of adultery can lead to a different outcome in a divorce action. (another province of state law.)


And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Wade
  • Wade
  • 100% (Exalted)
  • Veteran Member
12 years ago

That logic in and of itself can be used to argue that nothing should be a crime.

Originally Posted by: Porforis 



No.

Rourke is simply saying that making something a crime is more than saying something is a "wrong".

In particular (see last rambling posts), it must be shown that it is a wrong against the state.

And if it is to be called a federal crime, it must be shown to be a wrong against the United States.




And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Wade
  • Wade
  • 100% (Exalted)
  • Veteran Member
12 years ago

Yes, except that if a sport has been legally ruled a full-contact sport, there is no liability or injuries sustained in the course of a game, at least not in Wisconsin. That is why cheerleading injury claims are dismissed in Wisconsin courts -- the sport was ruled a full-contact sport.

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel 



Hey, I remember spending most of my high school years dreaming that cheerleading would be a full-contact sport.

[grin1]


And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
nerdmann
  • nerdmann
  • 100% (Exalted)
  • Premier Member
12 years ago
If I take money to break someone's legs, I'm going to jail. Especially if I do so in furtherance of a conspiracy to promote illegal gambling.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
Dexter_Sinister
12 years ago

If I take money to break someone's legs, I'm going to jail. Especially if I do so in furtherance of a conspiracy to promote illegal gambling.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 



What happens if you take money to hit a guy in the head after he had a head injury or two?
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
nerdmann
  • nerdmann
  • 100% (Exalted)
  • Premier Member
12 years ago
NOLA 

In 2007, Packers players reportedly offered to pay the team's defensive linemen $500 each if they were able to hold Minnesota Vikings tailback Adrian Peterson under 100 rushing yards and the Carolina Panthers under 60 rushing yards as a team.



At the time, Packers general manager Ted Thompson claimed responsibility, saying, "In management, we knew of the prohibition (against player incentive pools). It's my belief that the players involved did not think there was any prohibition, and that's a communication error we made. That's ultimately my responsibility."


“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
Zero2Cool
12 years ago
Last season, when a WR dropped a pass, he had to pay each of the other receivers $100. Much like holding Adrian Peterson under 100 yards, I don't see how this can be related to the bounty program in which the money pot was for injuring players.
UserPostedImage
Yerko
  • Yerko
  • 100% (Exalted)
  • Senior Member
12 years ago
A Saints fan (of a friend) tried to use this argument against me after seeing my default pic containing Packers gear. I couldn't stop laughing that he would even attempt to use the Packers "bounty" to dispute that the treatment the Saints were getting was unfair. Two completely opposite things.
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
Mucky Tundra (16h) : Happy Birthday wpr!
Zero2Cool (16h) : Anders Carlson ... released by 49ers
dfosterf (20h) : Happy Birthday!😊😊😊
wpr (20h) : Thanks Kevin.
Zero2Cool (22h) : Happy Birthday, Wayne! 🎉🎂🥳
beast (23h) : Edge Rushers is the same... it's not the 4-3 vs 3-4 change, it's the Hafley's version of the 4-3... as all 32 teams are actually 4-2
Zero2Cool (6-Nov) : OLB to DE and player requests trade. Yet folks say they are same.
beast (5-Nov) : In other news, the Green Bay Packers have signed Zero2Cool to update their website 😋 jk
beast (5-Nov) : Might just re-sign the kicker we got
beast (5-Nov) : Are there any kickers worth drafting next year?
Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : Preston Smith for Malik Willis
Mucky Tundra (5-Nov) : Getting a 7th rounder from the Stillers
Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : At least we get 7th round pick now!! HELLO NEW KICKER
Mucky Tundra (5-Nov) : Steelers getting a premier lockdown corner!
Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : Packers are trading edge rusher Preston Smith to the Pittsburgh Steelers, per sources.
Mucky Tundra (5-Nov) : Preston Smith traded to the Steelers!!!!
Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : CB Marshon Lattimore to Commanders
Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : Bears are sending RB Khalil Herbert to the Bengals, per sources.
Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : ZaDarius Smith continues his "north" tour.
Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : Let the Chiefs trade a 5th for him
Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : Nearing 30, large contract, nope.
Martha Careful (5-Nov) : any interest in Marshon Lattimore?
Zero2Cool (4-Nov) : What does NFL do if they're over cap?
Mucky Tundra (4-Nov) : They've been able to constantly push it out through extensions, void years etc but they're in the hole by 72 million next year I believe
hardrocker950 (4-Nov) : Seems the Saints are always in cap hell
Mucky Tundra (4-Nov) : Saints HC job is not an envious one; gonna be in cap hell for 3 years
Mucky Tundra (4-Nov) : Dennis Allen has now been fired twice mid-season with Derek Carr as his starting QB
Zero2Cool (4-Nov) : Kuhn let go
beast (4-Nov) : I wonder if the Packers would have any interest in Z. Smith, probably not
Zero2Cool (4-Nov) : Shefter says Browns and Lions will figure out how to get a deal done for Za'Darius Smith..
Zero2Cool (4-Nov) : Packers are more likely to have 1,000 yard rusher than 4,000 yard passer
Zero2Cool (3-Nov) : It's raining hard.
Zero2Cool (3-Nov) : Packers inactives vs. Lions: CB Jaire Alexander S Evan Williams C Josh Myers Non-injury inactives: WR Malik Heath OL Travis Glover DE Bren
packerfanoutwest (3-Nov) : Malik Willis: My focus is helping the Packers win, not proving I can start elsewhere. But he could
Zero2Cool (1-Nov) : I had Texans, but the loss of another WR flipped me
wpr (1-Nov) : I thought about taking the Jets but they've been a disaster. Losing to the Pats last week
Zero2Cool (1-Nov) : Surprised more didn't pick Jets in Pick'em.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 12:00 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
11h / Around The NFL / beast

6-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

6-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

6-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

6-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

6-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

5-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

5-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

5-Nov / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

5-Nov / GameDay Threads / Cheesey

5-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

5-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

5-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

4-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

2-Nov / Around The NFL / wpr

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.