.
This article contains my opinions on a hot social topic. If you don't want to read these, you know where your browser buttons are. :- )
.
Chapman is now persona non grata to many, if not most, MLB clubs. Without a doubt that would include Seattle's MLB club. This is an injustice. But the practical ramifications are clear: no Chapman closing for the Mariners in any scenario.
.
WHAT A BULLY NEEDS IS A GOOD KNUCKLE SANDWICH
If I were king, and a man punched a woman, I'd have him horsewhipped in public. I'm talking about the kind of whipping that puts you in the hospital. And if I see some dude doing it in the Wal-Mart today, I'm sure I'll beat him to within an inch of his life. It ain't as though I like bullies.
Billy Connolly was right. We have way too many lawsuits, and way too few people just getting hit in the mouth. Our society is effete, like the neutered sophisticates of the Capitol in the Hunger Games. That's why we swoon away, suffer the vapors, and overreact when it comes to any kind of physical threat.
We're talking about justice here, what our society should systematically do about situations like Chapman's.
.
HYPOCRISY AND SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS
My question is, are these 'domestic violence' media lynchings sincere. The media picks and chooses its 'morality.' Does Bob Nightengale truly empathize with suffering women, or is this kind of article his way to jockey for approving nods from his peers?
Why does America not media-lynch men for, let's say, ADULTERY? A woman commits her life to a man, has three toddlers with him, and then he destroys the marriage and family by cheating on her. Her suffering lasts for decades, not for five minutes. WHY is the transient pain of his grabbing her arm weighted so much more heavily than his destroying her life by philandery?
Or alcoholism or drug addiction. If we find out that MLB Star X betrayed the trust of his wife and children through substance abuse, that the children's lives were wrecked because their father was a sop, will that cause Geoff Baker to write five articles about how the Mariners should have done their due diligence and blackballed the man? (Love ya Geoff.)
It came out recently that Thomas Rawls once stole a woman's purse. Nobody gave two rips. Why is "Thou Shalt Not Steal" a small matter, but "Thou Shalt Not Be Suspected In a He Said She Said" a large one?
We grocery shop our morality. We don't take moral stands because we feel bad for victims. We take them because it's a way to pat ourselves on the back, to feel superior. Bill James casts this, weekly, as Self-Righteousness, campaigns against it as the main evil of our society. I agree with him up to a point. It's part of human nature that many people want desperately to think of themselves as superior to others. OFTEN, not always, this manifests itself in shrieking condemnation of whoever violates our grocery-shopped morality.
And if we grocery shop our morality, we are being hypocrites. I mean it in a good way.
....
My own (Jeff Clarke's) conclusion is five degrees off Bill James'. I've concluded that most of us, in this society, have abandoned what George Washington cared about. We are casting about for Sacred Causes, and we pick environmentalism or health care or domestic violence or whatever, and Bingo. We found something that Really Matters. We are every inch George Washington's equal.
My opinion is that if we were centered on what really does matter -- things that mattered to every U.S. President prior to (say) John F. Kennedy; Jeff didn't invent these things -- we wouldn't lose our sense of proportion on these lesser issues.
.
CHAPMAN WASN'T EVEN CHARGED BY THE POLICE
We're not talking about a convicted felon here. Even if we were, I would argue that we should punish Chapman using society's apparatus for punishing him. As a 300,000,000-person community, we HAVE an agreement as to what we do when somebody widdles in the water hole. It's called the justice system.
A judge in court is MUCH more likely to calibrate Chapman's punishment correctly than is a public lynching. Lynchings do not have a great track record for nuanced thought when it comes to punishment.
How about you? If you were caught in a DUI, wouldn't you want the LAW to punish you, rather than your employer? If you committed a crime, wouldn't you want to serve your sentence and then get on with your life, including your chosen profession?
If it is appopriate for the Seattle Mariners to blackball Aroldis Chapman based on a "he said, she said" then it is appropriate for Major League Baseball to ban him from baseball for life. Either he deserves to be able to pursue his career or he does not.
Ban him from baseball for life? When the police did not even charge him and we have no earthly idea what happened? I hope you ain't on my jury when the day comes, amigo :- )
.
NIGHTENGALE'S COLUMN
A few excerpts:
.
"This is bigger than the game of baseball," former
"I know we can’t touch him," a high-ranking
[Nightengale] It was a swift reminder of just how sensitive the domestic violence issue is these days, and no one is willing to wait for an explanation from Chapman, who won’t be charged in the case because of insufficient evidence, police in Florida announced Tuesday. (Get it? It's a SENSITIVE issue. We are not talking about truth or timeless justice here. We're talking about what the loudest people in the audience will tolerate.)
"The policy does not preclude us from taking action based on whether or not the player was arrested or pled guilty to a crime," (MLB VP Dan) Halem said. "The commissioner is going to judge it based on the conduct itself." (Get that one too? We don't care whether the justice system succeeds or fails. WE AS PRIVATE CITIZENS will make the decision whether to punish, and exactly how much. ... Based on what the special interest groups demand.)
.
DR'S R/X
There is an argument to be made on the other side, and I warmly invite you to make it, in the comments thread.
For example, when criminal trials fail to deliver justice, often a civil suit will compensate. And I couldn't agree more that if Chapman did choke his girlfriend, and the facts are established, then he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Oh, wait. He was. And that "fullest extent," which includes DUE PROCESS and a fair inquiry, is done with him. It's that I don't believe in "magic ears," that you can just tell by listening whether Chapman was lying, telling the truth, or did anything wrong.
These media lynchings are an authentic threat to our society. And I hope you won't participate by trying to outbid the next guy on who can propose the harshest denunciation of Aroldis Chapman. The day may come when you are accused of something.
Your friend,
Jeff
Agreed...with...every...word.
Richie Incognito: All-World goon: Still playing
Kobe Bryant: Sexual assualt/acquitted. Civil suit/settled out of court. Still playing. Making beaucoup bucks in endorsements.
Ray Lewis: Murder trial/self-defense ruled (which I thought was highly suspect). TV analyst
How many guys have I missed?
Chapman? He's a complete idiot, it seems. But I trust Joe Torre to figure it out. There were no charges. He shot up his garage. Something surely happened. But minus an elevator video, or the equivalent, I don't know how you do much more than fine and suspend for a while.
Which I would support, thank you. Being accused by your partner of choking her, then shooting up your garage, then hiding in the bushes from police seems to indicate something suspicious occured.
The commissioner has the power to fine and suspend. The union will appeal. But some punishement will still occur.
Then Chapman will throw 103 again.
Weather the PR storm, hold his feet to the flame, roll him out there again. Next June 1, perhaps.
Q for you though. How do we get from "seems to indicate something suspicious" to an actual, real-world penalty that harsh? A two-month suspension is $2-3M and probably a year lost out of his FA.
I didn't know that he fired a gun in his garage. Apparently that's established. Gracias amigo.
Next question would be: if the police didn't like what they found at the scene, if they thought that Chapman was intimidating her with gunshots (!) wouldn't they typically at least cite him for unlawful discharge of a firearm? Doesn't take a lot to push a DV-investigating policeman into that mode. You've supervised a police force no doubt, so much appreciate your take.
......
Seems like the prosecutor also could have nicked him on the unlawful gunshots easily enough. Perhaps Mojician can weigh in too.
Or not?
Garage Gunshots, apparently. According to Nightengale's reading of the policec report.
Most jobs/contracts have a ... well, you might call it, a PR clause. Mess up publicly, embarrass us, boom, you're gone. Why should MLB be any different?
In my field of employment, wherein I teach English etc. overseas, mostly in education-for-profit entities (an obscenity to be avoided at all costs; close-up observation and experience of it only makes it uglier than you can possibly imagine), if the students don't like you, they'll just make up a lie and get you fired. When I was a leader, I instituted an investigative procedure (duh! Right??) to prevent this utter nonsense, but good luck finding that industry-wide.
While I agree with you re: justice system, employment, I have to say, if you sign the contract, even under the duress of unemployment, you have agreed to its strictures.
By the way, I wonder about the facts as to the gunfire the media reported.
I've fired practice blanks in my own garage - plastic shells with just a firing cap and no gunpowder. It's safe and legal, though it can be pretty loud.
Touching off .357 rounds in a residential area with nothing but drywall to stop the slugs is another matter. You fire 8 bullets in such a dangerous area and you'd think the prosecutor would at least go for a heavy fine and a misdemeanor conviction.
If Chapman did recklessly discharge his firearm then I'm of course on board with the *law* doing something serious about the reckless endangerment. Does anybody know of a police report that specifies the facts on that?
At the policy’s core: A seven-person Joint Policy Board, comprised of two members each from MLB and the players’ union, along with three experts in the field of domestic violence, sexual assault and child abuse. One of the board’s expert members will submit a treatment plan to the full board for approval and oversee the player’s compliance with the plan.
A player’s treatment plan could include submitting to psychological evaluations, counseling sessions, court compliance, relocating from a home shared with his partner, limiting interactions with his partner, relinquishing of weapons and other “reasonable directives” to ensure safety of victims. Concurrently, the commissioner’s office will investigate any allegations of domestic violence, sexual assault or child abuse and can place the player on seven-day administrative league during the investigation, subject to appeal.
Discipline will come at the commissioner’s discretion, and the policy does not include suggested guidelines for length of suspension; rather, it allows Manfred to “issue the discipline he believes is appropriate in light of the severity of the conduct. The Commissioner’s authority to discipline is not dependent on whether the player is convicted or pleads guilty to a crime.”
that MLB has the authority to do this, was never in question. My question was, is it justice.
Sorry Doc, missed that part.
If we call it "workplace related discipline" does that mitigate the concern for justice?
If one of the Colorado Rockies smokes pot in Denver, where it is entirely legal, can he still be disciplined by the league? Is that justice?
I'm not sure "justice" (in the legal sense) is the biggest issue here. I would rather look at if the penalty is "just": Done or made according to principle; equitable; proper: Given or awarded rightly; deserved, as a sentence, punishment, or reward (admittedly, I cherry-picked just the right definitions).
Am I cutting hairs here?
Then my Q would be, what did Chapman do in the workplace that merits discipline?
....
In any case, when we're talking about "justice" my concern is that the sheriff is handing the perp over to the lynch mob based on their demands. Pro sports leagues punish DV accusees based not on their own judgment, but based on the shrieking of the media.
It is the special interest groups that have created this environment, in which adultery, stealing, drunkenness, etc. are unquestionably fine but any *allegation* of DV is met with the guillotine.
......
Great input as always Moe Dawg.
injustice re: weed is that NO ML players get suspended for pot smoking, but MiL players do.
I think that it is a good idea to not do business with a serious domestic abuser, such as Floyd Mayweather or Milton Bradley. Those guys are seriously bad repeat offender woman beater/intimidator/dominator/controllers.
I don't think that a guy should be censored for one incident, but I respect an athlete employer's right to direct its own brand image.
With Aroldis Chapman, like you said, he was never even arrested. From what I understand, his girlfriend saw some incriminating material on his cell phone, then she claimed a choking, but never had any red marks, then Chapman shot up his garage. There was a shoving match with Chapman's brother in law somewhere in there too.
All of this sounds like non-criminal family histrionics, except for the part about shooting up his garage.
This could be construed as assault with a deadly weapon. I might be scared for my life if my wife shot up our house. Also, it might be construed as felony vandalism. The police know that any felony, such as assault with a deadly weapon, and felony vandalism constitutes a deportable offense under federal law. It could be that the police downplayed the seriousness of Chapman shooting up his garage because of his stature in baseball, and the serious legal trouble they could cause him.
Or maybe it wasn't that big of a deal.
We do know that Chapman probably didn't beat his girlfriend in the classical sense, or she would have some bruises to show for it.
We do know that Chapman has a squeaky clean record, or he would not be allowed in the United States or Canada.
We do know that whatever happened in October is an isolated incident.
We do know that Chapman has the fastest fastball ever thrown.
Trade him for Deej and some other low minors guys. Do it now. Not saying that this would be a fair trade, but if they're just giving him away, why not us?
Could you comment on the prosecutor's choice not to ding him on the reckless endangerment, if that's in fact what happened? The mind boggles. The slugs would be in the drywall, or packing boxes, or whatever, and what's the problem in just writing him up and convicting him? Would take two seconds, as I've got it pictured.
I'm missin' somethin' somewhere ...
Hmmmmm. Employers have access to a lot of control over an employee's life under that concept, no?
I think one of the things I'm hiccup'ping on is that MY profession(s) aren't conducted by my employers as monopolies. Normal life for me is, if my employer wants to be unfair, I can go get another job within my training.
Here we get to the question of, when one company controls an entire sector exclusively, when does Congress provide checks-and-balances. My natural bent is definite. I don't like one company, say eBay, being able to kick an American out of a business sector permanently on a whim. I'd rather some Congressman, someplace, get on the phone and say "Be fair or we'll be fair for you."
But of course that's another Konspiracy Korner. Thanks Mojo.
I think it's because I'm reading Popular Crime that I'm so full of Q's for you and the Mayor :- )
It's never been my experience to hear of an on-scene officer say or think anything similar to, "Well, if I arrest this guy, it will mean too much of a hassle for him." My experience is that they are concerned with deference and cooperation towards them personally. I don't mean that to sound like I'm anti-police; I'm not.
Your experience with officers must be different Mojo?
The garage in question
Apparently Chapman has a two car garage and a five car garage. The house is more than 10,000 square feet. It would be hard to characterize his girlfriend as feeling endangered when he goes to his garage a furlong away to let off steam.
Also, it is hard to charge a guy with felony vandalism for shooting up his garage when he is worth $30 million bucks. Plus, he lives in the gunshine state. Plus, his outside acreage may be large enough that he did discharge his gun in a safe direction. Plus lawyers can be baseball fans too. Maybe the local prosecutor and the police let him off with a warning.
Here's a more sensitive point: In states with elected prosecutors and elected sheriffs, the rich locals tend to get more free passes than the street level baddies. Maybe he should have been charged with shooting guns in a neighborhood, but wasn't because he is rich and prominent.
Thanks for the detailed reply Counselor :- )
Ohio is certainly not as liberal as Washington but I thought in all 50 states it was unlawful to discharge a firearm 'near a building.' Here's a webpage that says just that for Ohio too. I'm a hobby shooter and the idea here seems to be 'near people who are not aware of your gunfire.' Of course you're a shooter too Mojo. 's why I ax.
As Chapman's defense attorney in Ohio (edit to correct: Florida) you are not concerned that the prosecutor could go after him on this?
.....
Second question is: Okay, Chapman's girlfriend didn't feel endangered. So why are we calling that "shooting up his garage" and connecting it to domestic violence in the press?
790.19 Shooting into or throwing deadly missiles into dwellings, public or private buildings, occupied or not occupied; vessels, aircraft, buses, railroad cars, streetcars, or other vehicles.—Whoever, wantonly or maliciously, shoots at, within, or into, or throws any missile or hurls or projects a stone or other hard substance which would produce death or great bodily harm, at, within, or in any public or private building, occupied or unoccupied, or public or private bus or any train, locomotive, railway car, caboose, cable railway car, street railway car, monorail car, or vehicle of any kind which is being used or occupied by any person, or any boat, vessel, ship, or barge lying in or plying the waters of this state, or aircraft flying through the airspace of this state shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
FS § 790.19 790.19
This would seem to apply, but there may be a loophole, as it was Mr. Chapman's house and he may have been shooting in a safe place. See Florida Statute § 790.725(j) (Protecting the rights of a person performing target practice under safe conditions and in a safe place not prohibited by law). Further, indoor shooting ranges are expressly allowed.
To get a full opinion on this, would take a survey of Florida case law and regs, as well as the county law where Mr. Chapman lives. Also, it would take a Florida law license. But the state does have some unique firearms laws that are quite different from what you might see in Seattle.
Check the case of Roy Walter Holtsclaw. In that case, drunken Roy Holtzclaw came home to his trailer, slapped his wife, and then shot the wall and into the baby's room. He was convicted of Florida Statute § 790.19 for shooting inside a dwelling. See more at 542 So.2d 437(1989). Other than the severity of it, I don't see how this case is any different from Chapman's.
The trick to defending Chapman, would be to argue that he didn't wantonly or maliciously fire his gun in his garage. Holtsclaw shot with intent to terrify his wife. This satisfies the wanoton and malicious element. Chapman may have just been blowing off steam.
I agree - that is apples and oranges. If Chapman were 'serving notice' to his girlfriend that he was heeled, pardner, then he would need some time in the pokey.
Dr. D is a zero tolerance guy when it comes to malicious gunfire vis-a-vis defenseless civilians...
The Plot Thickens:
In 2008, the Supreme Court of Florida throws out the conviction of Charles Kettell for shooting his .38 in his apartment, because he may not have had malicious motives for doing so.
The disjunctive adverbs, "wantonly or maliciously," refer to that mental condition which would naturally and in common experience be expected to be the attitude of one who, with reckless disregard of the potential deadly consequences, intentionally and for no good and lawful purpose discharges a firearm at, within or into an object known to contain, or to often contain, human beings, as distinguished from the lack of intent of one who accidently discharges a firearm or the mind and attitude of one who, without intending any wrong or harm, innocently shoots a firearm under apparently safe conditions. Inanimate objects, such as houses and cars, seldom so offend a person as to become the subject of a malicious and wanton attitude and of a wrath such as would cause one to shoot the object per se. Such rare occurrences could hardly have been what the statute was intended to proscribe.
In Florida, apparently you can shoot up your house, as long as you don't have bad motives for it. Who'da thunk it?
This is not a legal opinion, just a commentary on a crazy law.
the garage doesn't count as a "dwelling"?
My reply is, as a non-lawyer citizen who appointed you guys to define justice for us, I don't know what the local procedures dictate but ...
You shouldn't be able to just open fire with a handgun at the wall because you're ticked off. LOL. The principle is simple for me.
hahahahahahaha
According to the report, Chapman's girlfriend told cops that he " 'choked' her by placing his hands around her neck, but did not prevent her from breathing at any time." She also allegedly told them that he pushed her up against a wall and caused her to fall to the floor.
Chapman allegedly admitted to cops that during the argument, he left the house and got into the passenger seat of his Land Rover, where he punched the side window with his left hand – his pitching hand – causing a laceration. After that, Chapman allegedly told cops, he locked himself in his garage alone and shot several rounds inside. Police recovered eight shell casings.
(shots were evidently into a concrete wall)
So do we want to connect the punching of an inanimate object, far from her presence, to DV? Or the controlled, legal (?) use of his gun to the DV issue?
Just one of many possible scenarios:
1. The girlfriend goes through his cell phone and finds a bimbo on there.
1a. She goes nuts, reaming him out, getting in his face, following him around the house, etc.
2. Chapman restrains himself, but
2a. Half crazy with frustration, he goes out and locks himself in his car and hits inanimate objects etc.
3. She doesn't like his reaction, calls 911, and well aware of what will happen next, lies to the police about his getting physical.
4. The police roll their eyes and leave.
........
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT is right but here's the thing. I've known people, this being Seattle, who EVEN IF THAT WERE THE CASE would still want Chapman media-lynched. It sends a message. Men need to toe the line. It's a woman's prerogative, if she feels uncomfortable, to rally the troops and put the man in his place.
And if he feels uncomfortable with her verbal abuse? Get over it.
That's the media, not the prosecutors. As with the Frank Clark incident, prosecutors tend to have a feel for when DV charges are appropriate and when they're not. I'm fairly comfortable with the law sorting out a DV charge. I'm totally uncomfortable with Bob Nightengale sorting it out.
.....
Obviously we're talking about extremists, not anybody on SSI. But a lot of people in the media are just that.
That really is what the article is about. Fairness in "He said She said" situations. I don't care that I personally am a man; I'm never going to be in a DV situation. But if all we have to go on is the word of a person and we don't know whether that person is a liar or not, we need some corroborating evidence if we want justice.
I would, however, suggest that SSI readers not encourage the hair-trigger DV sensitivity that wants to make Chapman a national pariah WHETHER OR NOT he did anything wrong.
Handing over the mike now. Gotta wallow in the 1B windfall :- )
The issue really isn't the domestic violence legal concern, because we only have the allegation of such (and no charges), but the impact of those allegations. So any penalty isn't for actual/legally defined DV, but for the fact that his actions failed the "sniff test:" They sure smell like something near to DV.
And the contract he freely signed recognizes the right of his employers (and the league) to penalize him for that transgression.
He will remain employed in MLB: I see no real reason why that can't be for the M's. Were he a repeat "offender" I would be a "hanging judge." He's not, as far as we currently know.
Standard MLB contract:
Conduct Detrimental or Prejudicial to Baseball
And it's not like the typical MLB player is a choir boy who did nothing to bring problems on himself.
These guys get lives going with various people, and it's amazing sometimes that they see as few repercussions as they do.
As a society we tend to minimize first-hand accounts from women while at the same time giving professional athletes/celebrities the benefit of the doubt. I don't trust the police in general, especially not when it's a he-said-she-said situation where one party is a multi million dollar all star athlete, and the other is his girlfriend. That an arrest was not made at the time does not mean domestic violence did not occur. Hey, Greg Hardy's girlfriend never testified in court. You think he didn't do it?
When it comes to teams avoiding Aroldis, it's all about business, not justice. Sports teams are billion-dollar brands, just like Bartells or Starbucks. By trotting this guy out to the mound every night they're endorsing him and his behavior. Maybe he didn't do it, but I'm not willing to risk my business on that. If he thinks that's unfair, he shouldn't have fired a gun 8 times through his garage window into a field (with a 4 month old baby nearby) and had a dozen cops get called out to set a permiter on his house while he hunkered inside. My guess is that some, if not all of the allegations are true. He admitted he got physical, but just “poked his girlfriend on the left shoulder." Mmmmkay.
I have no idea what he did, and he should be allowed to play for any team that will have him. But I don't want him on my team. Sports is about more than winning for me, I want to feel good about who I root for.
Not sure that Mojician (a defense attorney) would be super enthused about that attitude from a juror? :- )
I would *hope* that what we expect from juries *reflects* what we all expect from ourselves in our own lives.
...
Good point Dan about special treatment of pro athletes. Maybe Chapman just had to joke with them about Reds tickets and he had them eating out of the palm of his hand. Could have happened.
...
That womens' accusations are not taken seriously enough, I'm also not so sure about. But then, I never went to Duke ;- )
First of all... Ask Tiger Woods, or Steve Sarkisian if we don't hold Adultery or Substance abuse high in our list of Media lynch able moral prerogatives...
Or ask Bill Cosby, Bill Clinton and Johnny Manziel...
Heck, Ask Von Miller, what he thinks of substance abuse policies... He is due for a YEAR LONG suspension if he smokes another doobie... IN A STATE WHERE IT IS PERFECTLY LEGAL FOR HIM TO DO SO...
DV is CERTAINLY NOT the only high moral horse we like to get on... The media is happy to go after any celebrity for... well pretty much anything it doesn't like, especially sports figures, because they are "Role Models" I think it has more to do with expectations (we EXPECT P Diddy to get in legal scuffles so, meh, when he does), and how much the media personally "likes" the personality (The Media bent over BACKWARDS to defend Tom Brady… He is just so darn likable!). Of course Domestic Violence IS a hot button issue right now, and in general an issue that needs addressing. Me personally? If a man even sneered at my daughter... he would be getting a whole bunch of Daddy OBF in his face... :)
Second... Most of us in the United States are at will employees... Meaning we can leave or they can tell us to leave, for pretty much any reason... Even in my mostly white, mostly middle class, mostly high morality circle of friends I have known many people to have either consequences or straight up job loss due to personal failings. From my college buddy who lost his job because he drank too much on the weekends, to my current co worker who lost certain security privileges because of a bogus DV accusation, to myself being limited (and passed over for promotion) at one job because I declined traveling over the Christmas holidays (Travel which had a dubious business case no less), instead wanting to be home with my family... Is it right that we have workplace consequences for our personal lives??? Eh, maybe not… probably not, but that’s the way the world turns... Even more so when the workplace is under intense media scrutiny and many many eyes are watching, and as Dan says, your employment of said player is a tacit endorsement of him... in total, his play style, his demeanor, and yes even his personal life...
Thirdly… Domestic Violence in particular is a hard, thorny issue… Everything from victims guilt causing women to lie for their abusive partners, to liars who are just looking to get someone in trouble, to overzealous police officers and prosecutors, to good old boy police officers and starry eyed DA’s. The range of DV circumstances is vast, the info subjective and sparse and the issue serious and grave (I assume you think legitimate wife beating is a serious and grave issue). I for one am happy that in general our public consciousness has swung from ignoring the problem to being perhaps over sensitive to it.
The issue is wrought with enough strife that my state (Oregon) arrests ANY accused, BY POLICY, if a police officer is called. It doesn’t matter if the accuser admits they are lying, it doesn’t matter if there is no credible evidence… If the cop shows up, someone is getting arrested. The main explanation for this policy is that the police left a DV call too many times, only to be called back for either a much WORSE DV instance, or… a death. It’s a good thing Chapman didn’t live in Oregon he would have spent at least one night in jail, no questions asked. SP instead of trying to sort the DV issues out in situ, the Oregon police just said screw it… We will take at least one party to jail and try to figure the rest out in the morning…
Finally in the specific case of Chapman and the Mariners… You still have to remember Howard is still trying to pull in the soccer moms and the Casual Sports fan, Microsoft employee, with a few bucks to burn and a free Thursday summer evening… Neither group is going to want to be confronted with moral or ethical issues in the ninth inning, they want a fun pleasant evening, a beer, a dog and hopefully a Mariner win! Personally I have been personally affected enough by DV that I want no part of anyone that has a hint of it and I think the Mainers can win without Chapman. When he is fully exonerated? Sure maybe we can circle back around, but not right now…
Could have been a lead essay itself. Thanks for taking the time amigo. Thought-provoking.
of the entirety and complexitudityness of the issue.
(Sorry, I don't mean to minimize the seriousness of the issue with my stupid joke.)
You fit in like OJ's hand and the glove ... ;-) no, seriously, we're diggin' it. Keep it coming mate :-) Always look forward to your angle!
Haven't had the chance to read any comments, I just love this:
"Billy Connolly was right. We have way too many lawsuits, and way too few people just getting hit in the mouth. Our society is effete, like the neutered sophisticates of the Capitol in the Hunger Games. That's why we swoon away, suffer the vapors, and overreact when it comes to any kind of physical threat."
Gorgeous.
As you sometimes say, we come for the sshtick and stay for the nuance.
looks like strictly news to me. I wouldn't condemn him for filling his assignment.
He even gave an example (Simon trade) that highlighted the hypocrisy in play.
you chose illustrate the hypocrisy, and kudos to Nightengale, thusly.
1) This whole thing is pretty questionable. It's one thing if there's an actual elevator video, but it's quite another if prosecutors pass on the case because of insufficient evidence. But we do love to publicly shame people these days.
2) I don't think every single incident of a physical altercation between husband and wife (or other domestic partnerships) equates to physical abuse. I remember once when I was a teenager, my Dad sort of tossed my Mom across the living room. I didn't see it happen, but I came running when I heard it. Was my Dad an abuser? No, of course not. It was a one-time thing and it happened because my Mom was digging and digging at him and he finally just blew. She wasn't hurt. Nothing got reported.
3) If I were an MLB team, I would hire the best private investigator I could find to dig into and try to suss out what really happened, and if it really was the non-incident that I think many of suspect is the case, then I would try to swoop in and grab the player for a bargain, regardless of the PR consequences.
That's just what the Seahawks did with Frank Clark, wasn't it? And the local media did its best to stir slop up. But thanks to the non-sinister facts of the case and the Seahawks' own resolve and self-confidence, it didn't get much of anywhere.
The Mariners could do the same with Chapman. But of course the Mariners are a very different organization from the Seahawks.
And totally agree with everything.
The media and the major sports leagues, especially after the NFL 'debacles', enjoys the witchhunt and mightier-than-thee attitude because it sells.
Two minutes of hate, anyone?
But on a side note, there's A LOT of good reporting prior to the shooting stuff about the difficulties Chapman faced since defecting from Cuba.
When I read about Chapman's thing, I honestly wasn't too surprised.
What are you going to do if you go from rags to Disneyland overnight?
That one's got legs. Somebody tweet it to a power broker, quick..