NFL Arrests and Lawsuits - 2018

[nanotech]

Holy crap, I thought this was a football sight. How did I get lost?

 

[jrry32]

Holy crap, I thought this was a football sight. How did I get lost?

How are your eyes? Maybe problems with your site got you lost.

 

[1maGoh]

Sorry, but there are plenty of jobs where it's simple to say "requires the ability to lift 25 lbs" or "required to stand for hours at a time"

The ADA is NOT a free-for-all with respect to anyone being able to do a job. A person in a wheel chair can't just become a police officer or fire fighter, for example. They can't just apply to become an oil field worker.

Doesn't work like that. Moreover, with all the cables and other impediments on the ground, there is NO WAY to properly accomodate a person in a wheelchair in a "security" capacity.

So the very notion that a disabled 66 year old female was put in a position where EVERY YEAR fans storm the field is beyond stupid. Moreover, it's reasonable to expect that All on field security would be expected to be able to impede the progress of a fan or fans onto the field.

And as @jrry32 mentioned, the Super Bowl is the most televised event in the history of the planet. There are more cameras and more individual footage from that event than any other. The very notion that there's no footage of an event that's supposed to have happened at the very end of a tight Super Bowl and it took 13 months to indict?

I call BS. At literally the event where almost every person is in some way/shape/form under video surveilance at all times, they have no video??? (especially because of the threat of terrorism, don't think it's just the network feeds they had access to)

Not a Bennett fan, but I'm less a fan of accusing an innocent person. And that goes for Bennett making his false accusation. I expect this to blow over.

Shame on HPD. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I'm not saying this IS always the way it works is but there way it's SUPPOSED to work is that you can't just say it requires the ability to lift 25 pounds or stand for hours. You have to justify the requirement, then justify that you couldn't make a reasonable accommodation.

Why do you have to stand for hours? Wouldn't sitting in the wheelchair be the same?

Why do they have to be able to lift 25 pounds? Is there anything that actually weighs 25 pounds that they have to lift? Can they be in this position but assigned duties that don't requires then to actually lift this theoretical 25 pound object?

In the case of this 66 year old person (you sexist!) in a wheelchair, the whole facility should be wheelchair accessible anyway. It's illegal not too be (not that some places aren't and they're hoping they don't get sued). The question of can she physically stop someone is another story, but if there's 3 people and a uniformed police officer, they may have said "Yes, she can do the 90%, or greater, of the job that isn't physically demanding and based on that, risking a lawsuit isn't with it."

I recently had to go through some training for hiring, evaluating, and firing people for my job. The company that did the training only does HR, so it's not like they put a PowerPoint together after a Google search. The point they drive home, frequently, was that if the job description didn't include something in the "core duties" or "major functions" or whatever, then not hiring someone or not hiring someone for inability to do that is risky. If it's in the core duties or requirements (education standards for example) then it really needs to be a necessary. If they can do the job without it, you risk lawsuits from people who are qualified but can't do that unnecessary or uncommon thing.
It's about managing risk after that. Can I substantiate that this is actually a requirement? And not to my satisfaction, but to the satisfaction of a court full of people I don't know, most of whom won't work in my industry or make hiring decisions? Will those people understand the strain I'm under to make effective and successful hires and that this individual had a low chance of being successful here? Probably not. Fuck it, I'll hire them.

I agree that she probably shouldn't have been there, but it would be hard to legally justify not having her there.

 

[Mackeyser]

I'm not saying this IS always the way it works is but there way it's SUPPOSED to work is that you can't just say it requires the ability to lift 25 pounds or stand for hours. You have to justify the requirement, then justify that you couldn't make a reasonable accommodation.

Why do you have to stand for hours? Wouldn't sitting in the wheelchair be the same?

Why do they have to be able to lift 25 pounds? Is there anything that actually weighs 25 pounds that they have to lift? Can they be in this position but assigned duties that don't requires then to actually lift this theoretical 25 pound object?

In the case of this 66 year old person (you sexist!) in a wheelchair, the whole facility should be wheelchair accessible anyway. It's illegal not too be (not that some places aren't and they're hoping they don't get sued). The question of can she physically stop someone is another story, but if there's 3 people and a uniformed police officer, they may have said "Yes, she can do the 90%, or greater, of the job that isn't physically demanding and based on that, risking a lawsuit isn't with it."

I recently had to go through some training for hiring, evaluating, and firing people for my job. The company that did the training only does HR, so it's not like they put a PowerPoint together after a Google search. The point they drive home, frequently, was that if the job description didn't include something in the "core duties" or "major functions" or whatever, then not hiring someone or not hiring someone for inability to do that is risky. If it's in the core duties or requirements (education standards for example) then it really needs to be a necessary. If they can do the job without it, you risk lawsuits from people who are qualified but can't do that unnecessary or uncommon thing.
It's about managing risk after that. Can I substantiate that this is actually a requirement? And not to my satisfaction, but to the satisfaction of a court full of people I don't know, most of whom won't work in my industry or make hiring decisions? Will those people understand the strain I'm under to make effective and successful hires and that this individual had a low chance of being successful here? Probably not. freak it, I'll hire them.

I agree that she probably shouldn't have been there, but it would be hard to legally justify not having her there.

Absolutely not.

I worked on a studio lot and there's NO WAY to make it handicapped accessible. Too many cables, stingers (the plastic speed bumps to prevent damage to the cable runs) and other impediments.

There's just NO WAY to make that happen.

As a disabled vet, I've had to become very familiar with the ADA (even as I'm unemployable) and there's so much that people don't understand.

If what you are saying were true, then UPS, FedEx and USPS would have to accomodate handicapped people in package sorting. Well, that's literally impossible. I had to be able to life 75 lbs as a condition of employment (and I had to lift a sample package that weighed 50+ lbs during the interview).

I hear you when you say about the HR stuff.

That said, it's not hard to justify that a Security person at the Super Bowl would have physical requirements that preclude weak and or mobility limited individuals. I absolutely could see a female being able to do the job no problem and we see men and women in various levels of fitness fulfilling these jobs at events every day.

The Super Bowl is different. The requirements are different. I'm incredulous that anyone thought it would be appropriate for a 66 year old disabled PERSON in a wheelchair to do anything on the field. Period. Not even a reporter. If anything, in the event of a brawl or a terrorist event, they actually become a bigger liability than a person in the stands that are specifically handicapped accessible.

 

[Akrasian]

The Super Bowl is different. The requirements are different. I'm incredulous that anyone thought it would be appropriate for a 66 year old disabled PERSON in a wheelchair to do anything on the field. Period. Not even a reporter. If anything, in the event of a brawl or a terrorist event, they actually become a bigger liability than a person in the stands that are specifically handicapped accessible.

I've assumed that the 66 year old already worked at the stadium for security, and that besides the additional security brought on for the Super Bowl they used everybody working at the stadium normally for security, even people who are little more than observers with a radio. I doubt she was hired specifically for the Super Bowl, and I doubt her normal duties required her to restrain people rushing the field - just with the greatly enhanced security and others running it she was placed down there with multiple other security personnel, thinking that there was enough to cover.

I suspect everybody is overthinking. It's not ADA per se, rather it's bureaucratic inertia (all security workers get to work the Super Bowl, even if their normal position is taken by one of the greatly enlarged team brought in for the event)

 

[Mackeyser]

I've assumed that the 66 year old already worked at the stadium for security, and that besides the additional security brought on for the Super Bowl they used everybody working at the stadium normally for security, even people who are little more than observers with a radio. I doubt she was hired specifically for the Super Bowl, and I doubt her normal duties required her to restrain people rushing the field - just with the greatly enhanced security and others running it she was placed down there with multiple other security personnel, thinking that there was enough to cover.

I suspect everybody is overthinking. It's not ADA per se, rather it's bureaucratic inertia (all security workers get to work the Super Bowl, even if their normal position is taken by one of the greatly enlarged team brought in for the event)

That may be, but keeping up with old stupid doesn't make it smart. It would always have been stupid. Even in a simple "give em a walkie and let them report" it still creates more of a danger in the event of something happening.

As for not having video, i so don't believe that, I don't have words. I guarantee that every single person at the Super bowl is under constant video surveilance.

There is simply no way that every square inch of the field wasn't constantly under video. Asserting that is beyond any semblance of credibility.

Anyone asserting that is lying. I can guarantee that they can place any fan they want and track them.

I think this is payback for what Bennett said about the LVPD. It won't amount to anything and force him so spend a lot on lawyers.

I don't think it's right what he did in LV.

That said, at what point is this kind of hot garbage acceptable? Accusing a person who they know is innocent is just plain wrong and it's a travesty.

But then again, if a day goes by without a travesty, I'm sure we all wouldn't know what to do.

 

[jrry32]

That may be, but keeping up with old stupid doesn't make it smart. It would always have been stupid. Even in a simple "give em a walkie and let them report" it still creates more of a danger in the event of something happening.

As for not having video, i so don't believe that, I don't have words. I guarantee that every single person at the Super bowl is under constant video surveilance.

There is simply no way that every square inch of the field wasn't constantly under video. Asserting that is beyond any semblance of credibility.

Anyone asserting that is lying. I can guarantee that they can place any fan they want and track them.

I think this is payback for what Bennett said about the LVPD. It won't amount to anything and force him so spend a lot on lawyers.

I don't think it's right what he did in LV.

That said, at what point is this kind of hot garbage acceptable? Accusing a person who they know is innocent is just plain wrong and it's a travesty.

But then again, if a day goes by without a travesty, I'm sure we all wouldn't know what to do.

Agreed. Hell, Michael Bennett's sister released footage from her cell phone camera showing them running onto the field. It doesn't show what the HPD alleges happened. It's possible it happened before she started filming, but if she has a video, how does nobody else have video?

This is immediately after the game. Are we really being told that there were no TV cameras rolling? If there were, none of them caught it in the background? And beyond that, none of the NFL cameras were rolling (All-22)? The stadium has no surveillance for the Super Bowl for safety purposes?

That explanation stinks to me. When you take all of this together (the time it took to indict, the timeline, the lack of video cameras, the victim, and the Chief's comments at the presser), it reeks. The way the Chief of Police conducted that press conference was very unprofessional, and it makes me question his motives. Most of you know that I don't like Michael Bennett. I criticized the hell out of him on this forum for what he did against the Jags. But Bennett being a shithead doesn't justify police misconduct, if that's happening here.

 

[Farr Be It]

And for someone who talks so often about freedom and liberty, acquiescing to unchecked police powers especially in the face of frequent police abuses is just... I'm not sure what to call it.

So cooperating with police at a traffic stop, or not running from police constitute "acquiescing to unchecked police powers"? Got it. You are conflating two different things. If you are not sure what to call it, maybe don't call it. Cuz, you seem to be indicting my character.

My views are consistent. A free society also needs order. Where did you read that I support unchecked police powers? You got the wrong guy. And the given recent examples do not lend to your point too well. There are so many eyeballs on cops right now. (Just my example given from the shooting in Sacramento, you can go online right now. Hear the 911 call. Watch the helicopter cam, following with tracking camera, watch and listen to the police body cams) It's all pretty transparent. Bad cops are rooted out. Police districts are wholly politicized.

I don't buy the narrative of "unchecked police powers". Bad cops get rooted out generally. And I applaud it. It is so important for police to see themselves as they are: Servants of the community.

 

[…..]

Agreed. Hell, Michael Bennett's sister released footage from her cell phone camera showing them running onto the field. It doesn't show what the HPD alleges happened. It's possible it happened before she started filming, but if she has a video, how does nobody else have video?

This is immediately after the game. Are we really being told that there were no TV cameras rolling? If there were, none of them caught it in the background? And beyond that, none of the NFL cameras were rolling (All-22)? The stadium has no surveillance for the Super Bowl for safety purposes?

That explanation stinks to me. When you take all of this together (the time it took to indict, the timeline, the lack of video cameras, the victim, and the Chief's comments at the presser), it reeks. The way the Chief of Police conducted that press conference was very unprofessional, and it makes me question his motives. Most of you know that I don't like Michael Bennett. I criticized the hell out of him on this forum for what he did against the Jags. But Bennett being a shithead doesn't justify police misconduct, if that's happening here.

It's pretty clear some of us are leaning one way, while others leaning toward doubt and discredit of credible citizens.

Some doubts come in the form of not trusting the time line, or questioning lack of video, or asking why a wheel chair bound person is serving as security. None of these things have anything to do with the facts of the case. They only would provide assurance to quell your doubts.

You've already vindicated him by stating that being a shithead doesn't make him guilty or even worse, you have hinted at police misconduct.

I don't see a lot of arguments that say Michael Bennett has a proven lack of credibilty. It may not be fair, but there is a reason certain witnesses cannot testify in court. it's because they have been deemed not credible.

What I am reading from your comments is that you seem to be leaning towards innocence and to me it appears that you would question a police chief, his credibilty, and his investigation well before you question a person who has already demonstrated and shown the world that there is at least a minor issue with credibility.

The fact that you can do that is to me waaaay more interesting than Michael Bennett will ever be.

 

[jrry32]

What I am reading from your comments is that you seem to be leaning towards innocence and to me it appears that you would question a police chief, his credibilty, and his investigation well before you question a person who has already demonstrated and shown the world that there is at least a minor issue with credibility.

As a person with some experience in the sort of matters, I feel that it is not out of place for me to point to the glaring issues with the information coming out if the HPD. The police chief brought his own credibility into question with his actions during that press conference.

As for whether I am leaning towards innocence, I don't have all the facts. However, I do feel that I have enough facts to point out that what the HPD is telling us doesn't add up.

 

[…..]

As a person with some experience in the sort of matters, I feel that it is not out of place for me to point to the glaring issues with the information coming out if the HPD. The police chief brought his own credibility into question with his actions during that press conference.

As for whether I am leaning towards innocence, I don't have all the facts. However, I do feel that I have enough facts to point out that what the HPD is telling us doesn't add up.

All good. To be clear, I dont think we have much of a criminal case here. I didnt see the press conference either so I'm not aware of any police credibility questions. At most, one could say a person pushing past security while claiming exclusive rights to do so over other patrons can be considered a dick head. But criminal? No thats not criminal....ie...he was'nt "trespassing" and he most certainly isnt the first person to bang his way past security at a public event.

Of course, if you injure someone while being a dickhead and that person elects to go after you in civil court, then thats the injured persons prerogative. At that point I suppose the lawer for the accuser would absolutely state that once the acused caused bodily injury, he crossed over from being a dick to being a criminal. I guess thats a valid statement for a lawyer to make.

So I guess that brings me all the way back to my origional point. Idiots put themselves in idiot situations. This is a situation that may end up belonging in the dumb ass of the day thread, and it never needed to happen if all parties had respect for one another.

 

[Prime Time]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/03/29/report-judge-issues-warrant-for-aldon-smiths-arrest/

Judge issues warrant for Aldon Smith’s arrest
Posted by Charean Williams on March 29, 2018

Getty Images

Aldon Smith failed to show in court Thursday, violating a protective order stemming from an alleged domestic violence incident, TMZ Sports reports. A judge in San Francisco issued a bench warrant for Smith’s arrest.

Smith’s attorney argued Smith had never missed a court date and told him he planned to attend, per TMZ.

The former Raiders and 49ers linebacker was arrested last week for violating a court order to stay away from the victim in a domestic violence case.

His fiancee accused him of biting her wrists earlier this month, leading to charges of domestic violence, assault with force likely to produce bodily injury, false imprisonment and vandalism.

 

[Legatron4]

I’m interested in the Boykin case. Did he do it or not?

I don’t understand how It even escalated to that. I really hope it’s not true.

 

[Prime Time]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/04/01/todd-marinovich-in-trouble-with-the-law-again/

Todd Marinovich in trouble with the law, again
Posted by Mike Florio on April 1, 2018

Getty Images

The sad story of former NFL quarterback Todd Marinovich has another sad chapter.

Via the Palm Springs Desert Sun, the 1991 first-round draft pick of the Raiders has been arrested yet again. He remains in jail, on undisclosed charges.

Marinovich reportedly was arrested on March 19, posted bail, and was arrested again on March 23. He has not been released.

The arrests come at a time when Marinovich remains on probation for a 2016 arrest, which happened when he was found naked in a stranger’s backyard, with a paper bag containing drugs and syringes.

Marinovich returned to football last year, playing in a developmental league at the age of 48. He spent two seasons in the NFL, starting a total of eight regular-season games and one playoff game.

 

[BonifayRam]

The security mtg company has to comply with Federal EEO requirements meaning that all three might have had physical disabilities working on the security line that would have made it very hard for all three to restrain the violator.

Most individuals do comply with the rules of the stadium. Security usually depends on the good nature well manner citizens will behave themselves not to violate the orders of security line detail & honor their instructions.

In this case it would appear that this perpetrator was not one of our better citizens. Who would of ever thought this would occurred.

 

[Prime Time]

Here's a full list of his legal problems:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Marinovich#Legal_troubles

Marinovich has had a number of arrests, many of which have been related to his ongoing drug problems, including nine arrests in Orange County, California, alone. He was arrested in 1991, while still a student at USC, on cocaine possession.

In 1997, Marinovich was arrested on suspicion of growing marijuana; he served two months in jail, and a third at a minimum-security facility in Orange County known as the Farm. In April 2000, he was arrested for sexual assault, followed by a 2001 arrest on suspicion of heroin.

In August 2004, he was arrested by Newport Beach police for skateboarding in a prohibited zone. Marinovich was arrested in a public bathroom in Newport Beach, California, in May 2005 after being found with apparent drug paraphernalia; he gave his occupation as "unemployed artist" and "anarchist". Marinovich was ordered to undergo six months of drug rehabilitation followed by six months of outpatient treatment as a result.

In August 2007, Marinovich was arrested and charged with felony drug possession and resisting a police order after being stopped for skateboarding near the Newport Pier boardwalk. On October 30, 2007, he pleaded guilty to felony possession of a small amount of methamphetamine and misdemeanor syringe possession and resisting arrest. Orange County Superior Court Commissioner James Odriozola decided to give Marinovich another chance at rehabilitation and released him to a rehab program in Laguna Beach.

During a period of sobriety from 2007-2008, Marinovich worked with National Drug & Alcohol Treatment Centers, located in Newport Beach, California, to help young athletes overcome addiction and to stay clean. In August 2008 after one year of sobriety, Marinovich was hired as a lecturer by Newport Coast Recovery, a drug and alcohol treatment facility in Newport Beach.

On April 4, 2009, he was arrested in Newport Beach after he failed to appear in court for a progress review on his rehabilitation related to his 2007 arrest He was ordered to be held in jail without bail until his May 4 hearing before the Orange County Superior Court.

On August 22, 2016, he was arrested in Irvine, California after being found naked and in possession of drugs in a neighbor's backyard. Authorities say a naked Marinovich tried to open the sliding glass door of an Irvine home. He was cited for trespassing, possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of marijuana. Later tests concluded the controlled substance to be methamphetamine. He could face up to three years in jail if convicted.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8uGRiuEY-8