Tano
Legend
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2017
- Messages
- 9,222
Kareem Hunt...
- Thread starter Liberator
- Start date
-
To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
- Status
fearsomefour
Legend
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2013
- Messages
- 17,188
You can't handle discussion or a different point of view?
You wonder if people should be banned because they have a different point of view?
Welcome to America 2018.....the thought police out in full force.
This sort of mentality is narcissistic and counter productive.
fearsomefour
Legend
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2013
- Messages
- 17,188
I would venture to say the actions he take has nothing to do with his age.
Immaturity certainly could have played into whom he was with and why. But, his actions are his own and he will pay for them.
Regardless of his age.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2014
- Messages
- 20,922
- Name
- Peter
The bolded part was meant generically to all members. It should have been on a separate post. It was not meant for you. My apologies.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2018
- Messages
- 1,375
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #225
Sure I'm not the one who brought up being young the other poster did.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2018
- Messages
- 1,375
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #226
I don't think it's about wanting to police thought, since I doubt the Hunt defenders have done much thought to begin with. It just makes her uncomfortable. Which is understandable reading some of the posts in here not just being skeptikal but outright supporting what Hunt did. I don't think anyone should be banned but I do think certain posters ought to take a long look in the mirror.
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2010
- Messages
- 9,691
I was curious to get a woman's perspective on this, so I showed it to my wife. She thinks there were dumbasses everywhere, but doesn't understand why Hunt would lose his job over that. Neither of us defend the dude for this, but my goodness some people really like to flex their moral muscles over what appears to be a minor, regrettable incident.....ya know.... In the overall scheme of things.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2014
- Messages
- 20,922
- Name
- Peter
https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/11/30/k...em-hunt-hotel-video-released-key-legal-points
Five Key Legal Points Surrounding Kareem Hunt
By MICHAEL MCCANN
Michael McCann is SI’s legal analyst. He is also Associate Dean of the University of New Hampshire School of Law and editor and co-author of The Oxford Handbook of American Sports Law and Court Justice: The Inside Story of My Battle Against the NCAA.
1. The Chiefs and NFL knew about the incident since its immediate aftermath
NFL spokesperson Brian McCarthy tweeted a statement Friday night indicating that the league’s investigation into Hunt “began immediately” following the incident. TMZ reported on the incident and accompanying police report two days after it occurred. On July 16, TMZ published the police body cam video from the incident. A month later, Chiefs CEO Clark Hunt (no relation) acknowledged the incident in comments to the media.
He noted “Kareem is a young man ... I’m sure he learned some lessons this offseason and hopefully won’t be in those kind of situations in the future.” Clark Hunt also expressed that he did not expect the running back to be suspended by the NFL, though as the team’s CEO, he was hardly a neutral evaluator of that question.
These points highlight that the league has had ample time to explore what took place and to attempt to acquire the surveillance video. That lengthy and perhaps slow-moving investigative process bears absolutely no resemblance to the haste at which Hunt’s NFL career was shut down on Friday night. This suggests that the difference between Hunt playing NFL football is as much about public access to a damning surveillance video as it is about what took place on that video.
2. It’s unclear why the NFL had not suspended or exempted Hunt—unless the NFL believed the evidence weighed in Hunt’s favor
Since the NFL has known about the incident for nearly 10 months and had declined to invoke any remedial measures until Friday evening, the league had apparently weighed the available evidence in a light favorable to Hunt.
This is true for at least two reasons. First, we know that the league did not find that Hunt violated the personal conduct policy because he hasn’t been suspended. Second, we know that the league hadn’t even found “sufficient credible evidence that it appears a violation of the policy occurred.” This is because Hunt wasn’t placed on the Commissioner Exempt list until Friday night.
It wasn’t as if the NFL’s hands were tied by any meaningful requirements of procedural fairness. The NFL enjoys a level of discretion in player discipline unmatched by any other major sports league. Article 46 of the NFL-NFLPA collective bargaining agreement forbids “conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football.”
This expansively-worded provision accords commissioner Roger Goodell with nearly unlimited choice in determining (1) whether off-field misconduct occurred, (2) whether any misconduct was detrimental to the league; (3) how “detrimental to the league” ought to be defined in a given situation; and (4) an appropriate punishment.
As Tom Brady’s “Deflategate” litigation revealed, even when the commissioner appears to have crucial facts wrong, courts will not supply disciplined players with procedural rights that their union, the NFLPA, failed to negotiate.
These same points are true in regard to matters of domestic violence. Such matters are governed by a league interpretation of Article 46: players who commit domestic violence receive a minimum six-game suspension for a first-time offense. This policy, however, has not always been applied. New York Giants kicker Josh Brown was originally suspended one game instead of six despite admitting to domestic violence.
As Robert Klemko explains in a MMQB column, Goodell has not always placed an especially high bar for finding a domestic violence suspension. Last year Goodell suspended Dallas Cowboys running back Ezekiel Elliott for six games even though (1) Elliott had not been criminally charged, (2) there were serious questions about the evidence and (3) there does not appear to have even any video of the alleged incident involving Elliott.
If the ultimate answer is the NFL simply found Hunt credible and his victim less credible, the league should revisit the process steps it undertook to reach such a conclusion.
3. It’s unclear if the NFL has interviewed Hunt
It’s unknown if NFL officials interviewed Hunt about the incident. It would be confounding if they did not interview Hunt given the existence of a police report, the seriousness of the matter and the investigatory relevance of whether Hunt’s account was believable and logically-consistent and whether he seemed credible when telling it.
The league also has a practice of meeting with players who are accused of domestic violence in hotels. Goodell interviewed Ray Rice about a 2014 incident in which he punched his then-fiancée, Janay Palmer, in an elevator of Revel Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City. Rice, however, had been charged with a crime whereas Hunt has not (yet) been charged.
4. Shouldn’t the NFL or Chiefs have seen the hotel surveillance video long before Friday?
It appears that the NFL had not seen the Hunt hotel video until TMZ published it on Friday. This begs the question of how a private media company could acquire a disturbing video about an athlete before that athlete’s private sports league—even when that league was aware of the video’s existence.
It isn’t as if TMZ is a governmental entity with subpoena power. And it isn’t as if TMZ is a party to a litigation that would permit pretrial discovery into the incident and its evidence. TMZ and the NFL are both private companies that are subject to the same rules of engagement. Yet, like with Ray Rice, TMZ acquired a crucial surveillance video while the NFL watched from the sideline.
ESPN’s Adam Schefter reports that, according to sources, the NFL made “multiple attempts” to obtain the video but were denied by the hotel, the police and the persons who were near and around Hunt.
This is not surprising.
Hotels normally do not turn over surveillance videos unless required to do so by court order. Hotels, like any business, want to minimize their potential involvement in legal disputes. They will thus seek ways to evade participation in post-incident investigations.
Hotels are also mindful of the risk of premises liability in the event someone is injured in an incident that occurs on the hotel’s property. Turning over the surveillance video—which is the Metropolitan Hotel’s private property—could make it more likely that someone in that ruckus claims an injury and sues the hotel.
As to law enforcement, while police departments are public entities and are thus subject to public records request, they are usually permitted under state law to reject such requests on account of an on-going police investigation. To that end, it remains possible that Hunt and others who were present could be charged with crimes.
Ohio law generally provides for a six-year statute of limitations for felony charges and a two-year statute of limitations for misdemeanor charges. The fact that Hunt hasn’t been charged doesn’t guarantee he won’t be.
In terms of alleged victims declining to respond to the NFL, this too was expected. Those alleged victims have little to gain by cooperating with the NFL and may be concerned that their names would become public if they cooperated with the NFL (a league that is known to leak sensitive information from time-to-time). The alleged victims may have employers who strongly prefer their employees not gain national media attention for involvement in a hotel hallway fight with an NFL player.
The league should have been immediately aware that a video existed. The Metropolitan is a four-star hotel. A hotel of that caliber is highly likely to use hallway and exterior surveillance cameras. Hotels tend to use cameras since their insurance rates for the risk of premises liability are affected by the quality of the hotel’s security measures.
Even if the NFL wasn’t sure about the video’s existence, finding out would have been very easy: an official could have called the hotel and asked or simply visited the hotel in person. According to Schefter’s report, it appears the NFL was aware.
So what could the league have done to obtain the video? One approach would been to take the steps used by TMZ. Another approach would have been to demand it from Hunt or his attorney. It’s not clear if Hunt or his attorney possessed the video, but there’s a chance the police would have shared it since the video relates to Hunt’s legal defenses should he be charged with a crime. Also, if the Hunt’s victim has notified Hunt that she plans to sue him, then Hunt's attorney could seek a court order demanding the video be turned over by the hotel.
If Hunt had the video, the NFL could have demanded that he share it upon threat of punishment under Article 46. Along those lines, the league could have taken an adverse inference from Hunt’s refusal to turn over the video and then suspended him for the refusal. Such a demanding approach would hardly have been unprecedented: recall that Goodell justified his Article 46 suspension of Brady in part because Brady didn’t turn over his phone.
Alternatively, if Hunt did not have the video, the NFL could have at least required he prove he and his attorneys made a good faith effort to try to acquire it.
5. Hunt was likely not justified in his attack and could face a civil lawsuit
The video indicates that the unidentified woman argued with Hunt before hitting him in the face. There is also an accusation that she called him the n-word. Even assuming that is completely accurate, Hunt probably lacked the legal right to respond by pushing, shoving and kicking people to the ground.
Self-defense laws generally permit a person to defend himself or herself when faced with imminent harm. However, those laws do not permit retaliation or retribution. While it’s possible that Hunt felt threatened—especially given he had already been hit and may have been called a racist word—the video suggests that he aggressively pursued someone who had hit him. Such an account would make it difficult for him to claim he acted in self-defense since his response would arguably have reflect retaliation more than defense.
Even if Hunt doesn’t face criminal charges, he could be sued civilly by the persons with whom he made physical contact. They could insist he battered them through unlawful and injurious physical contact. They could also contend that he inflicted emotional distress through outrageous behavior that, in turn, caused them turmoil. Those persons might also sue the hotel under a theory of premises liability in that the hotel arguably failed to protect them from Hunt.
Five Key Legal Points Surrounding Kareem Hunt
By MICHAEL MCCANN
Michael McCann is SI’s legal analyst. He is also Associate Dean of the University of New Hampshire School of Law and editor and co-author of The Oxford Handbook of American Sports Law and Court Justice: The Inside Story of My Battle Against the NCAA.
1. The Chiefs and NFL knew about the incident since its immediate aftermath
NFL spokesperson Brian McCarthy tweeted a statement Friday night indicating that the league’s investigation into Hunt “began immediately” following the incident. TMZ reported on the incident and accompanying police report two days after it occurred. On July 16, TMZ published the police body cam video from the incident. A month later, Chiefs CEO Clark Hunt (no relation) acknowledged the incident in comments to the media.
He noted “Kareem is a young man ... I’m sure he learned some lessons this offseason and hopefully won’t be in those kind of situations in the future.” Clark Hunt also expressed that he did not expect the running back to be suspended by the NFL, though as the team’s CEO, he was hardly a neutral evaluator of that question.
These points highlight that the league has had ample time to explore what took place and to attempt to acquire the surveillance video. That lengthy and perhaps slow-moving investigative process bears absolutely no resemblance to the haste at which Hunt’s NFL career was shut down on Friday night. This suggests that the difference between Hunt playing NFL football is as much about public access to a damning surveillance video as it is about what took place on that video.
2. It’s unclear why the NFL had not suspended or exempted Hunt—unless the NFL believed the evidence weighed in Hunt’s favor
Since the NFL has known about the incident for nearly 10 months and had declined to invoke any remedial measures until Friday evening, the league had apparently weighed the available evidence in a light favorable to Hunt.
This is true for at least two reasons. First, we know that the league did not find that Hunt violated the personal conduct policy because he hasn’t been suspended. Second, we know that the league hadn’t even found “sufficient credible evidence that it appears a violation of the policy occurred.” This is because Hunt wasn’t placed on the Commissioner Exempt list until Friday night.
It wasn’t as if the NFL’s hands were tied by any meaningful requirements of procedural fairness. The NFL enjoys a level of discretion in player discipline unmatched by any other major sports league. Article 46 of the NFL-NFLPA collective bargaining agreement forbids “conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football.”
This expansively-worded provision accords commissioner Roger Goodell with nearly unlimited choice in determining (1) whether off-field misconduct occurred, (2) whether any misconduct was detrimental to the league; (3) how “detrimental to the league” ought to be defined in a given situation; and (4) an appropriate punishment.
As Tom Brady’s “Deflategate” litigation revealed, even when the commissioner appears to have crucial facts wrong, courts will not supply disciplined players with procedural rights that their union, the NFLPA, failed to negotiate.
These same points are true in regard to matters of domestic violence. Such matters are governed by a league interpretation of Article 46: players who commit domestic violence receive a minimum six-game suspension for a first-time offense. This policy, however, has not always been applied. New York Giants kicker Josh Brown was originally suspended one game instead of six despite admitting to domestic violence.
As Robert Klemko explains in a MMQB column, Goodell has not always placed an especially high bar for finding a domestic violence suspension. Last year Goodell suspended Dallas Cowboys running back Ezekiel Elliott for six games even though (1) Elliott had not been criminally charged, (2) there were serious questions about the evidence and (3) there does not appear to have even any video of the alleged incident involving Elliott.
If the ultimate answer is the NFL simply found Hunt credible and his victim less credible, the league should revisit the process steps it undertook to reach such a conclusion.
3. It’s unclear if the NFL has interviewed Hunt
It’s unknown if NFL officials interviewed Hunt about the incident. It would be confounding if they did not interview Hunt given the existence of a police report, the seriousness of the matter and the investigatory relevance of whether Hunt’s account was believable and logically-consistent and whether he seemed credible when telling it.
The league also has a practice of meeting with players who are accused of domestic violence in hotels. Goodell interviewed Ray Rice about a 2014 incident in which he punched his then-fiancée, Janay Palmer, in an elevator of Revel Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City. Rice, however, had been charged with a crime whereas Hunt has not (yet) been charged.
4. Shouldn’t the NFL or Chiefs have seen the hotel surveillance video long before Friday?
It appears that the NFL had not seen the Hunt hotel video until TMZ published it on Friday. This begs the question of how a private media company could acquire a disturbing video about an athlete before that athlete’s private sports league—even when that league was aware of the video’s existence.
It isn’t as if TMZ is a governmental entity with subpoena power. And it isn’t as if TMZ is a party to a litigation that would permit pretrial discovery into the incident and its evidence. TMZ and the NFL are both private companies that are subject to the same rules of engagement. Yet, like with Ray Rice, TMZ acquired a crucial surveillance video while the NFL watched from the sideline.
ESPN’s Adam Schefter reports that, according to sources, the NFL made “multiple attempts” to obtain the video but were denied by the hotel, the police and the persons who were near and around Hunt.
This is not surprising.
Hotels normally do not turn over surveillance videos unless required to do so by court order. Hotels, like any business, want to minimize their potential involvement in legal disputes. They will thus seek ways to evade participation in post-incident investigations.
Hotels are also mindful of the risk of premises liability in the event someone is injured in an incident that occurs on the hotel’s property. Turning over the surveillance video—which is the Metropolitan Hotel’s private property—could make it more likely that someone in that ruckus claims an injury and sues the hotel.
As to law enforcement, while police departments are public entities and are thus subject to public records request, they are usually permitted under state law to reject such requests on account of an on-going police investigation. To that end, it remains possible that Hunt and others who were present could be charged with crimes.
Ohio law generally provides for a six-year statute of limitations for felony charges and a two-year statute of limitations for misdemeanor charges. The fact that Hunt hasn’t been charged doesn’t guarantee he won’t be.
In terms of alleged victims declining to respond to the NFL, this too was expected. Those alleged victims have little to gain by cooperating with the NFL and may be concerned that their names would become public if they cooperated with the NFL (a league that is known to leak sensitive information from time-to-time). The alleged victims may have employers who strongly prefer their employees not gain national media attention for involvement in a hotel hallway fight with an NFL player.
The league should have been immediately aware that a video existed. The Metropolitan is a four-star hotel. A hotel of that caliber is highly likely to use hallway and exterior surveillance cameras. Hotels tend to use cameras since their insurance rates for the risk of premises liability are affected by the quality of the hotel’s security measures.
Even if the NFL wasn’t sure about the video’s existence, finding out would have been very easy: an official could have called the hotel and asked or simply visited the hotel in person. According to Schefter’s report, it appears the NFL was aware.
So what could the league have done to obtain the video? One approach would been to take the steps used by TMZ. Another approach would have been to demand it from Hunt or his attorney. It’s not clear if Hunt or his attorney possessed the video, but there’s a chance the police would have shared it since the video relates to Hunt’s legal defenses should he be charged with a crime. Also, if the Hunt’s victim has notified Hunt that she plans to sue him, then Hunt's attorney could seek a court order demanding the video be turned over by the hotel.
If Hunt had the video, the NFL could have demanded that he share it upon threat of punishment under Article 46. Along those lines, the league could have taken an adverse inference from Hunt’s refusal to turn over the video and then suspended him for the refusal. Such a demanding approach would hardly have been unprecedented: recall that Goodell justified his Article 46 suspension of Brady in part because Brady didn’t turn over his phone.
Alternatively, if Hunt did not have the video, the NFL could have at least required he prove he and his attorneys made a good faith effort to try to acquire it.
5. Hunt was likely not justified in his attack and could face a civil lawsuit
The video indicates that the unidentified woman argued with Hunt before hitting him in the face. There is also an accusation that she called him the n-word. Even assuming that is completely accurate, Hunt probably lacked the legal right to respond by pushing, shoving and kicking people to the ground.
Self-defense laws generally permit a person to defend himself or herself when faced with imminent harm. However, those laws do not permit retaliation or retribution. While it’s possible that Hunt felt threatened—especially given he had already been hit and may have been called a racist word—the video suggests that he aggressively pursued someone who had hit him. Such an account would make it difficult for him to claim he acted in self-defense since his response would arguably have reflect retaliation more than defense.
Even if Hunt doesn’t face criminal charges, he could be sued civilly by the persons with whom he made physical contact. They could insist he battered them through unlawful and injurious physical contact. They could also contend that he inflicted emotional distress through outrageous behavior that, in turn, caused them turmoil. Those persons might also sue the hotel under a theory of premises liability in that the hotel arguably failed to protect them from Hunt.
fearsomefour
Legend
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2013
- Messages
- 17,188
Probably.
That said, I can't imagine someone being made uncomfortable by language would be anyone else's concern.
As for policing thought (in this case people posting opinions or thoughts in a way that are ok with board standards) when she posts she wonders if they should be allowed to stay here (paraphrasing) that is exactly what she is suggesting.
Expecting discussion to run through or be filtered through ones feelings is narcissistic.
It's sad and weak, but, this isnsociety now.
But all of that is off topic I guess.
As usual with this sort of incident all sides (the league, the Chiefs and certainly Hunt) look bad.
12intheBox
Legend
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2013
- Messages
- 9,983
- Name
- Wil Fay
I did the same and my wife had a similar reaction - frankly I thought it looked worse than she did. When you hear that he kicked her, I think many of us expect a full force kick. This was more of a kick her off balance shove with the foot.
The part I find most disturbing is that he needed to be held back from getting to her. He fought thru grown men to get at her - applying enough force to knock a friend and her down in the process. It seemed he wasn’t in control of himself at all.
I also find the lack of charges disturbing unless the victim just refused to cooperate entirely. That video shows an assault - and not one privileged by self defense. There should have been charges.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2018
- Messages
- 1,375
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #233
Meh. Lot of assumed bull shit in this post but for my own sanity just not gonna bother replying. It'd be awfully narcasistic of me to suggest maybe people who defend woman beaters should take a long look at themselves in the mirror.
…..
Legend
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2013
- Messages
- 5,089
Easy call for the league in the short term. Tough call for Teams next year if theres a reinstatement.
We humans tend to gather in mobs when theres blood in the water. My feeling is that NFL teams are fearful of losing revenue and will listen to the mobs. But anything is possible, and by then Donald Trump may have done something even more morally reprehensible than this young man, so mobs could easily be distracted while he quietly signs his new deal.
Oh who am I kidding.
Trump is an angel and Hunt will never sign quietly ever again
We humans tend to gather in mobs when theres blood in the water. My feeling is that NFL teams are fearful of losing revenue and will listen to the mobs. But anything is possible, and by then Donald Trump may have done something even more morally reprehensible than this young man, so mobs could easily be distracted while he quietly signs his new deal.
Oh who am I kidding.
Trump is an angel and Hunt will never sign quietly ever again
Zodi
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2016
- Messages
- 3,600
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2018
- Messages
- 1,375
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #236
What would have happened had his friends not held him back?
Zodi
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2016
- Messages
- 3,600
He would've walked to the local C-store and bought a lotto ticket? Who knows? Are we policing hypothetical situations now?
I'm not defending what he did. But calling it a beating is a disservice to those women who actually suffer from domestic violence. It's a complete exaggeration.
When he "pushed" the dude who fell into the girl, it looked like he actually ran into him and Hunt's force knocked the dude forward, who then knocked the girl, etc.
Honestly to me, it looks like a bunch of drunk kids doing drunk kid things. Doesn't excuse it in the least, but I don't think it's as serious as what some other players have been caught (and admitted to) doing. What Hunt did is nowhere NEAR as bad as what Hill did. And from what I can tell, Hunt really doesn't have any prior drama to reference.
Last edited:
I like Rams
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2017
- Messages
- 2,179
This right here. The incident wasn't bad, in terms of physicality. Its what it could have been. Ive had some women say some shit to me, but knowing that it wouldnt even be close to a fair fight, I've never acted that way towards a woman. If its a decent sized man, well that's another story.
Like Hunt said, shes a 19 yr old girl. She jist graduated high school. Act like a grown ass man and keep your shit together.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2018
- Messages
- 1,375
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #239
But it's not hypothetical because we see him shove her, shove someone in to her, and then kick her. Had he just been held back and yelled at her we could say it's hypothetical but at the point where you initiate physical contact with someone three times it is no longer "hypothetical".
Zodi
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2016
- Messages
- 3,600
You see her get in his face, and he reclaims his personal space. I wouldn't have done that, but I don't think that's a precursor for violence, or a "beating." She then slaps him, and he pushes her again. There's no audio, so we don't know exactly what's going on, or what might've triggered him (besides the slap) after the first push.
The chick in the blue skirt even pushes the guy trying to remove her from the situation. She's just as much at fault for this incident as Hunt is, imo. She's a grown woman, too, and consequences fall on her as well.
When you ask "What would've happened if his friends didn't hold him back?", the answer is irrelevant because we don't know. You're asking me to predict the outcome of a hypothetical situation, by the very definition of the word.
Drunk kids doing drunk things. Doesn't seem like anyone was seriously injured, and they should all be thankful for that. Like I said, it doesn't seem as if this is a recurring thing with Hunt as this is the only instance I could find, so if that's the case, I agree with jrry32 and this thing will blow over-- probably before the start of next season.
- Status