Bears Cut Ray McDonald after Arrest on DV Charges

[Kirby Jackson]

I was very curious about that when it was ongoing.... had to google since you brought it up. looks like he was just this month sentenced to a year in jail (time served) the next year in a halfway house and 3 years probation.....

 

Though this quote from his lawyer killed me:

 

That is pretty unbelievable. I cannot get passed Titus Young being "an inspiration fro legions of young men." the guy was arrested twice in 15 hours!!

[Rob's House]

 

Nope--I was just pointing out how dumb the other poster sounded.

 

Also, he wasn't "falsley accused" the first time by this same woman. She refused to cooperate further with the cops after the inital complaint. There are at least several reasons a woman would not continue to press charges. They aren't all due to false claims.

I wasn't claiming her first accusation was or wasn't false. I'm curious how you know it wasn't false though?

[Mr. WEO]

I wasn't claiming her first accusation was or wasn't false. I'm curious how you know it wasn't false though?

 

Again, I don't. You're intent on putting words in my mouth to make your point. I simply said she stopped cooperating with the cops/DA.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Mr. WEO

[Rob's House]

 

Again, I don't. You're intent on putting words in my mouth to make your point. I simply said she stopped cooperating with the cops/DA.

Your words from your own mouth:

 

Also, he wasn't "falsley accused" the first time by this same woman.

[C.Biscuit97]

He's just misunderstood.

If he were a regular person on the street... Hello Prison!!

You'd be surprised and depressed how many regular scumbags get away with things. There are people who kill someone in a DWI accident who don't even get a year in jail.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

All I see here is a guy who's been accused of doing something wrong.

 

I can't blame the Bears for cutting him. Whether he did it, or not, he's obviously in a relationship that's going to result in stress that the Bears don't need.

 

I think calls to ban him - as well as calls for him to "get the help he needs" - are very premature.

 

He might be a decent guy who is in a relationship with a serious B word who wants to ruin his life by making these accusations.

 

He might be a scumbag woman beater.

 

Which one he is, of those two possibilities - should be determined before his long-term future in the NFL (aka his livelihood) is decided.

 

Dude, if someone takes out a restraining order against you and you just have to flout it the next day, you need professional help. End of sentence.

[NoSaint]

 

Dude, if someone takes out a restraining order against you and you just have to flout it the next day, you need professional help. End of sentence.

I tend to agree but have we gotten any details on what happened? I'll admit to reading the thread more than seeking articles.

 

It's a wide gap between it being a default court procedure and her possibly saying lets talk and her pushing for a meeting that he's too dumb to avoid while mom reports the situation and him showing up on meth screaming at her while she seeks help. I genuinely haven't heard any description beyond a few tweets that he violated it.

 

None of it's good judgement but domestic situations can carry a pretty wide spread under the same vague descriptions that 140 characters afford

[Hapless Bills Fan]

 

My point is that he shouldn't be forced, via an NFL ban, to earn a livelihood not playing a game unless he's actually convicted of doing something wrong.

 

It's a pretty scary and sad state of affairs if accusations can lead to being banned.

 

I believe I must respectfully disagree. The reason lies in the difference between a government, and an employer. An employer can set standards of conduct for an employee that do not require legal procedures, in fact that explicitly aren't illegal.

 

Example: it is not illegal to talk to the press. In fact, one might say the right to do so is explicitly guaranteed by law in the first amendment. Many companies, including one I worked for, have a policy stating that employees shall not speak to the press regarding anything involving the company, but shall instead refer the press to a company spokesperson. An incident occurred on our worksite, the press came looking for interviews, and one young lady exercised her first amendment right to free speech. And that was the last time that young lady collected a paycheck from that company. There were some bleeding hearts, but the bottom line is the standard was clearly defined for all of us in writing, we all signed our names that we read and understood it when we signed our contract to be paid damn well by said company, and if you violate company policy you lose your right to be employed by that company.

 

The NFL essentially an entertainment company, and explicitly states that "it is not enough to simply avoid being convicted of a crime...you are held to a higher standard, and are expected to conduct yourself in a way that is responsible, promotes the values on which the league is based, and is lawful....persons who fail to live up to this standard are guilty of conduct detrimental to the league and subject to discipline, even where the conduct itself does not result in conviction of a crime"

 

So you'll have to excuse me for being all scared and sad that the league might discipline this guy, up to and including a ban, for failing to live up to league policy, just because he hasn't been convicted of a crime. I don't think he should get a ban...that would be inconsistent with other discipline. But it's perfectly understandable if teams look at the pattern of events, look at the policy, and say "pass", or if the league disciplines him with a suspension. He isn't being "forced", he's failing to live up to the standard set for him by employer policy, and he gets the consequences.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Hopeful

[Mr. WEO]

Your words from your own mouth:

 

 

I was correcting your error. She stopped cooperating, so you can't claim she falsely accused him.

[Rob's House]

 

I was correcting your error. She stopped cooperating, so you can't claim she falsely accused him.

I claimed no such ****. Learn how to !@#$ing read.

 

I believe I must respectfully disagree. The reason lies in the difference between a government, and an employer. An employer can set standards of conduct for an employee that do not require legal procedures, in fact that explicitly aren't illegal.

 

Example: it is not illegal to talk to the press. In fact, one might say the right to do so is explicitly guaranteed by law in the first amendment. Many companies, including one I worked for, have a policy stating that employees shall not speak to the press regarding anything involving the company, but shall instead refer the press to a company spokesperson. An incident occurred on our worksite, the press came looking for interviews, and one young lady exercised her first amendment right to free speech. And that was the last time that young lady collected a paycheck from that company. There were some bleeding hearts, but the bottom line is the standard was clearly defined for all of us in writing, we all signed our names that we read and understood it when we signed our contract to be paid damn well by said company, and if you violate company policy you lose your right to be employed by that company.

 

The NFL essentially an entertainment company, and explicitly states that "it is not enough to simply avoid being convicted of a crime...you are held to a higher standard, and are expected to conduct yourself in a way that is responsible, promotes the values on which the league is based, and is lawful....persons who fail to live up to this standard are guilty of conduct detrimental to the league and subject to discipline, even where the conduct itself does not result in conviction of a crime"

 

So you'll have to excuse me for being all scared and sad that the league might discipline this guy, up to and including a ban, for failing to live up to league policy, just because he hasn't been convicted of a crime. I don't think he should get a ban...that would be inconsistent with other discipline. But it's perfectly understandable if teams look at the pattern of events, look at the policy, and say "pass", or if the league disciplines him with a suspension. He isn't being "forced", he's failing to live up to the standard set for him by employer policy, and he gets the consequences.

Your argument is that the league should punish him for violating the conduct policy even if they don't know he violated the conduct policy because he's been accused and they can. Did it ever occur to you that our justice system is based upon a presumption of innocence because that's the most just way of approaching the issue of punishing conduct and that maybe that's a good policy to follow even if it's not mandated by law?

[Mr. WEO]

I claimed no such ****. Learn how to !@#$ing read.

 

Your argument is that the league should punish him for violating the conduct policy even if they don't know he violated the conduct policy because he's been accused and they can. Did it ever occur to you that our justice system is based upon a presumption of innocence because that's the most just way of approaching the issue of punishing conduct and that maybe that's a good policy to follow even if it's not mandated by law?

 

 

I think I read pretty well actually.

 

You said: "knowing it's the same woman changes the equation because the odds of 1 person wrongfully accusing him twice are considerably higher than two separate people wrongfully accusing him."

 

​Sure looks like you're arguing that you believe she falsely (or wrongly, if you no prefer) accused him previously, and now again. You are using some sort of odds ratio to explain why you think she's lying twice now.

[Rob's House]

 

 

I think I read pretty well actually.

 

You said: "knowing it's the same woman changes the equation because the odds of 1 person wrongfully accusing him twice are considerably higher than two separate people wrongfully accusing him."

 

​Sure looks like you're arguing that you believe she falsely (or wrongly, if you no prefer) accused him previously, and now again. You are using some sort of odds ratio to explain why you think she's lying twice now.

Are you really too stupid to comprehend that sentence? It doesn't mean that either situation happened; it means one is more likely than the other. !@#$ing dumb ****.

[Mr. WEO]

Are you really too stupid to comprehend that sentence? It doesn't mean that either situation happened; it means one is more likely than the other. !@#$ing dumb ****.

 

What makes it more likely, in your mind at least? Or, conversely, why is she less likely telling the truth because it's happened twice. Why is that intuitive to you?

 

Why wouldn't it be more likely true that her repeated complaints against him (her ex fiancé and father of her child) are valid, then if their were from two female strangers? Your logic concludes that the more complaints she makes for domestic abuse, the less likely it is true that he assaulted her. That's a rather unique argument---or are you now going to walk back that one also?

 

This guy just got arrested for immediately violating a restraining order. Do you think that may be something she made up as well?

[Rob's House]

 

What makes it more likely, in your mind at least? Or, conversely, why is she less likely telling the truth because it's happened twice. Why is that intuitive to you?

 

Why wouldn't it be more likely true that her repeated complaints against him (her ex fiancé and father of her child) are valid, then if their were from two female strangers? Your logic concludes that the more complaints she makes for domestic abuse, the less likely it is true that he assaulted her. That's a rather unique argument---or are you now going to walk back that one also?

 

This guy just got arrested for immediately violating a restraining order. Do you think that may be something she made up as well?

Good God you're dense. I didn't say it's more likely than not that she was lying. I said (in reference to the "where there's smoke" argument) that If it were 2 separate women each independently accusing him then I understand why people would jump to conclusions. However, since it's the same woman who accused him in the first place there's no reason to jump to conclusions because the odds of someone who made a wrongful accusation (IF that happened) in the first place making another one are a lot higher than the odds of 2 separate people making such allegations. It's not that complicated. You should be embarrassed that I had to spell it out like this for you. Hell, you probably still don't get it. Edited May 29, 2015 by Rob's House

[Mr. WEO]

"I didn't say it's more likely than not that she was lying.

 

the odds of someone who made a wrongful accusation (IF that happened) in the first place making another one are a lot higher"

 

 

You haven't established that she made a wrongful complaint in the past, so why bring it into your argument? Since you already said you didm;t lain she made a false claim before, why can't you also argue the opposite is true: if her previous complaint was true, her current assault claim is even more likely to be true?

 

Why didn't you allow for that possibility?

[Rob's House]

"I didn't say it's more likely than not that she was lying.

 

the odds of someone who made a wrongful accusation (IF that happened) in the first place making another one are a lot higher"

 

 

You haven't established that she made a wrongful complaint in the past, so why bring it into your argument? Since you already said you didm;t lain she made a false claim before, why can't you also argue the opposite is true: if her previous complaint was true, her current assault claim is even more likely to be true?

 

Why didn't you allow for that possibility?

Because the inverse is also true, and in either case it's less probative than 2 separate complaintants. Even you must understand that. Edited May 29, 2015 by Rob's House

[Mr. WEO]

Because the inverse is also true, and in either case it's less probative than 2 separate complaintants. Even you must understand that.

 

Then why didn't you originally say "if her first complaint is valid, it is more likely that this complaint is true as well, so we should shed no tears for McDonald, he's a magnet for domestic violent physical rage"?

[Gugny]

 

I believe I must respectfully disagree. The reason lies in the difference between a government, and an employer. An employer can set standards of conduct for an employee that do not require legal procedures, in fact that explicitly aren't illegal.

 

Example: it is not illegal to talk to the press. In fact, one might say the right to do so is explicitly guaranteed by law in the first amendment. Many companies, including one I worked for, have a policy stating that employees shall not speak to the press regarding anything involving the company, but shall instead refer the press to a company spokesperson. An incident occurred on our worksite, the press came looking for interviews, and one young lady exercised her first amendment right to free speech. And that was the last time that young lady collected a paycheck from that company. There were some bleeding hearts, but the bottom line is the standard was clearly defined for all of us in writing, we all signed our names that we read and understood it when we signed our contract to be paid damn well by said company, and if you violate company policy you lose your right to be employed by that company.

 

The NFL essentially an entertainment company, and explicitly states that "it is not enough to simply avoid being convicted of a crime...you are held to a higher standard, and are expected to conduct yourself in a way that is responsible, promotes the values on which the league is based, and is lawful....persons who fail to live up to this standard are guilty of conduct detrimental to the league and subject to discipline, even where the conduct itself does not result in conviction of a crime"

 

So you'll have to excuse me for being all scared and sad that the league might discipline this guy, up to and including a ban, for failing to live up to league policy, just because he hasn't been convicted of a crime. I don't think he should get a ban...that would be inconsistent with other discipline. But it's perfectly understandable if teams look at the pattern of events, look at the policy, and say "pass", or if the league disciplines him with a suspension. He isn't being "forced", he's failing to live up to the standard set for him by employer policy, and he gets the consequences.

 

I think my issue, here, is that no one has proven that he's done anything wrong. Nor has anyone shown or proven that he's not living up to any standard/conducting himself responsibly ...

 

For all we know (and seriously ... none of us knows crap), she called him on the phone, crying frantically that the baby wasn't breathing and he needed to get there asap. And when he got there, she could have said, "ha. gotcha. police are being called now."

 

OR ... he went there to beat the daylights out of her, but changed his mind and left.

 

Point being ... no one knows yet, and calling for any punishment, banning, etc. is premature.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

I claimed no such ****. Learn how to !@#$ing read. (note: not addressed to me)

 

Your argument is that the league should punish him for violating the conduct policy even if they don't know he violated the conduct policy because he's been accused and they can. Did it ever occur to you that our justice system is based upon a presumption of innocence because that's the most just way of approaching the issue of punishing conduct and that maybe that's a good policy to follow even if it's not mandated by law?

 

No, that is not my argument at all. Very ironic when coupled with your admonition to another poster "learn how to .... read". I might add "read and understand".

 

I really don't see the point in debating you because I don't think you're really interested in trying to understand someone else's point and debating that point, (more in inserting straw and igniting it)

 

But for anyone else who might be reading and thinking about this stuff, the actual point is 1) employers have the right to define standards of conduct for employees that exclude perfectly legal behaviors 2) that the behaviors that are known to have occurred by Ray McDonald (some of which have been made public or publically acknowledged) - especially as a pattern - can be reasonably seen as "conduct detrimental to the league", regardless of the grounds for arrest ("accusation") whether or not they meet a standard of legal guilt or innocence.

 

In the example I gave of a young lady who lost her job for speaking to the press about an incident on company property, it did not matter if the young lady actually said anything detrimental to the company - I don't believe she did. It was clearly stated that no employee is to speak to the press about anything involving the company, but rather to direct the press to a company spokesperson, thus she was terminated for cause.

 

The law, and legal standards of guilt and innocence, are not necessarily relevant to an employment contract or the standards of employee behavior defined therein. That's a fact. Employers act in accord with what they perceive as their business interests. Why would you expect business interests to align with legal standards of whether a crime was committed and legal standards of proof? Why would that be the most "just" standard for the company? It reeks of entitlement, IMO - people who believe they are entitled to jobs, special treatment, and protection from the consequences of their actions.

[Rob's House]

 

No, that is not my argument at all. Very ironic when coupled with your admonition to another poster "learn how to .... read". I might add "read and understand".

 

I really don't see the point in debating you because I don't think you're really interested in trying to understand someone else's point and debating that point, (more in inserting straw and igniting it)

 

But for anyone else who might be reading and thinking about this stuff, the actual point is 1) employers have the right to define standards of conduct for employees that exclude perfectly legal behaviors 2) that the behaviors that are known to have occurred by Ray McDonald (some of which have been made public or publically acknowledged) - especially as a pattern - can be reasonably seen as "conduct detrimental to the league", regardless of the grounds for arrest ("accusation") whether or not they meet a standard of legal guilt or innocence.

 

In the example I gave of a young lady who lost her job for speaking to the press about an incident on company property, it did not matter if the young lady actually said anything detrimental to the company - I don't believe she did. It was clearly stated that no employee is to speak to the press about anything involving the company, but rather to direct the press to a company spokesperson, thus she was terminated for cause.

 

The law, and legal standards of guilt and innocence, are not necessarily relevant to an employment contract or the standards of employee behavior defined therein. That's a fact. Employers act in accord with what they perceive as their business interests. Why would you expect business interests to align with legal standards of whether a crime was committed and legal standards of proof? Why would that be the most "just" standard for the company? It reeks of entitlement, IMO - people who believe they are entitled to jobs, special treatment, and protection from the consequences of their actions.

So then, what has he done that's detrimental to the league?