INTENT
-
When reporters asked Rogers on Friday why he needed a weapon, his attorney, Patrick D'Angelo, answered that it wasn't a fair question because his client has a license to carry a firearm.
Even without a carry permit it isn't a fair question. It's a one sided, biased, agenda driven question.
None the less, a dumb move on Rogers part.
Even without a carry permit it isn't a fair question. It's a one sided, biased, agenda driven question.
None the less, a dumb move on Rogers part.
I think it is a fair question. He is a public person, and the reporter has the right to ask the question.
Why do you need a gun? Why did you need to cheat on your wife? Why did you need to drive drunk?
Why did you need to commit any kind of crime...or perceived offense.
We ask these poignant questions of celebrities every day. There are whole programs dedicated to asking these questions.
They are fair in today's society for celebrities. They are especially fair if his actions may send him to prison.
He may have the right to refuse to answer, but the questions are fair.
-
I am a weapons instructor and I really think people are overreacting about him carrying a gun with a round in the chamber. Guns have so many safety features that the only way for it to go off is for you to purposely pulling the trigger. He has made a big mistake but I seriously doubt he will see any jailtime. He didnt shoot himself in a foot or point it at a teammate. He had no hostile intensions besides it being loaded in a bag. Just lay off of him and give him a break.
I am a weapons instructor and I really think people are overreacting about him carrying a gun with a round in the chamber. Guns have so many safety features that the only way for it to go off is for you to purposely pulling the trigger. He has made a big mistake but I seriously doubt he will see any jailtime. He didnt shoot himself in a foot or point it at a teammate. He had no hostile intensions besides it being loaded in a bag. Just lay off of him and give him a break.
I don't see any substantive difference between this really and what Plaxico Burris did....except for the fact that the accident of having this thing discharge didn't happen. Also, remember, this is potentially a FEDERAL offense because it occurred in an airport. Under federal sentencing guidelines a judge may have NO choice but to issue the mandated sentence.
I mean, Plaxico didn't have hostile intent either. They obviously didn't "lay off" him for an equally stupid act.
Hey....the NRA types have advocated for harsh penalties for people that violate the laws, including the gun laws. Don't complain when your chicken comes home to roost.
-
I am a weapons instructor and I really think people are overreacting about him carrying a gun with a round in the chamber. Guns have so many safety features that the only way for it to go off is for you to purposely pulling the trigger. He has made a big mistake but I seriously doubt he will see any jailtime. He didnt shoot himself in a foot or point it at a teammate. He had no hostile intensions besides it being loaded in a bag. Just lay off of him and give him a break.
I don't see any substantive difference between this really and what Plaxico Burris did....except for the fact that the accident of having this thing discharge didn't happen. Also, remember, this is potentially a FEDERAL offense because it occurred in an airport. Under federal sentencing guidelines a judge may have NO choice but to issue the mandated sentence.
I mean, Plaxico didn't have hostile intent either. They obviously didn't "lay off" him for an equally stupid act.
Hey....the NRA types have advocated for harsh penalties for people that violate the laws, including the gun laws. Don't complain when your chicken comes home to roost.
I don't see any substantive difference between this really and what Plaxico Burris did....except for the fact that the accident of having this thing discharge didn't happen. Also, remember, this is potentially a FEDERAL offense because it occurred in an airport. Under federal sentencing guidelines a judge may have NO choice but to issue the mandated sentence.
I mean, Plaxico didn't have hostile intent either. They obviously didn't "lay off" him for an equally stupid act.
Hey....the NRA types have advocated for harsh penalties for people that violate the laws, including the gun laws. Don't complain when your chicken comes home to roost.
There is a difference. Plaxico didn't have any conceal/carry of any kind. Rogers did.
-
Just floating this out there for all those people making excuses for Rogers, how many people think you would have the same reaction if Rogers was a no-named middle eastern guy with the same lame-assed "I forgot it was in there" excuse?
i've tried using this analogy with a couple of other topics on this forum before............but NOONE has ever given an answer because their true colors would be exposed. if it was a middle eastern man who had been stopped with a loaded cocked gun at an airport with a permit, it would have made national news. we would be looking into who gave him the permit and for what, maybe go interview his family and friends and embarrass the shit out of them on all the networks. and then it wouldn't be the liberal media anymore would it? in my opinion rogers is getting a break. he's lucky he's in cleveland. plaxico was on the news everyday here in ny and national news cuz it happened in ny.
But it is also a disingenuous question. I know he didn't mean it that way, so I'm not trying to slam bonedawg or anything. But, and unfortunately, our perception, and the media's interest, is garnered as a product of the environment in which we live. Right now, because of 9/11, the environment is suspicious of middle eastern people. It is sad, but it is true.
Because of this, you can't use your above quote as a valid analogy, because the circumstances negate it.
Was Rogers stupid to not know where his loaded and cocked .44 magnum Ultra II was at all times? I wouldn't say stupid, but he certainly needs to be a bit more aware. That being said, someone above mentioned that they have forgotten they had their pistol holstered when they got into their truck, because they were so used to having that pistol holstered and it became an extension of their body, rather than something that would constantly catch their attention.
Secondly, Rogers does (or did, not sure if Michigan will let him keep it now that this has happened) have a Conceal/Carry in Michigan. Not sure if this carries over to Ohio though.
This is not a black and white situation. My opinion, Rogers will get a slap on the wrist, lose his conceal/carry, do some community service, and maybe a year probation. He will probably get at most, a 1 game suspension from the NFL, but it is likely that Goodell will just slap his wrist as well.
But it is also a disingenuous question. I know he didn't mean it that way, so I'm not trying to slam bonedawg or anything. But, and unfortunately, our perception, and the media's interest, is garnered as a product of the environment in which we live. Right now, because of 9/11, the environment is suspicious of middle eastern people. It is sad, but it is true.
Because of this, you can't use your above quote as a valid analogy, because the circumstances negate it.
That sounds like a long excuse for racial profiling. We were suspicious of Japanese after Pearl Harbor. Were internment camps right because of the "environment" at the time?
Attempting to carry a loaded gun onto a plane regardless of circumstance should be treated the same. For argument's sake thaak, I'll adjust my analogy. You have your shoes off and you are in line ready to go through the metal detector at the airport. There is a white guy in front of you who just went through the detector. All of the sudden, security freaks out, they tackle the guy and pull a loaded handgun out of his bag. Are you cool with that guy just "forgetting" he had his gun? How about if he was on your flight? Last time I checked "I forgot" wasn't a valid legal excuse. Anyone other than an athlete and this would be all over the news as a possible terrorist attack.
-
He couldv'e been arrested at the airport for not taking off his shoes or for having a full size bottle of shampoo also.
But everyone is scared of a gun. I wouldv'e trusted him more with a gun than some of these Barney Fife TSA cops.
He couldv'e been arrested at the airport for not taking off his shoes or for having a full size bottle of shampoo also.
But everyone is scared of a gun. I wouldv'e trusted him more with a gun than some of these Barney Fife TSA cops.
They don't arrest for having a full size bottle of shampoo. They just confiscate the shampoo. My daughter made that mistake and they took her shampoo.
-
But it is also a disingenuous question. I know he didn't mean it that way, so I'm not trying to slam bonedawg or anything. But, and unfortunately, our perception, and the media's interest, is garnered as a product of the environment in which we live. Right now, because of 9/11, the environment is suspicious of middle eastern people. It is sad, but it is true.
Because of this, you can't use your above quote as a valid analogy, because the circumstances negate it.
That sounds like a long excuse for racial profiling. We were suspicious of Japanese after Pearl Harbor. Were internment camps right because of the "environment" at the time?
Attempting to carry a loaded gun onto a plane regardless of circumstance should be treated the same. For argument's sake thaak, I'll adjust my analogy. You have your shoes off and you are in line ready to go through the metal detector at the airport. There is a white guy in front of you who just went through the detector. All of the sudden, security freaks out, they tackle the guy and pull a loaded handgun out of his bag. Are you cool with that guy just "forgetting" he had his gun? How about if he was on your flight? Last time I checked "I forgot" wasn't a valid legal excuse. Anyone other than an athlete and this would be all over the news as a possible terrorist attack.
That sounds like a long excuse for racial profiling. We were suspicious of Japanese after Pearl Harbor. Were internment camps right because of the "environment" at the time?
Attempting to carry a loaded gun onto a plane regardless of circumstance should be treated the same. For argument's sake thaak, I'll adjust my analogy. You have your shoes off and you are in line ready to go through the metal detector at the airport. There is a white guy in front of you who just went through the detector. All of the sudden, security freaks out, they tackle the guy and pull a loaded handgun out of his bag. Are you cool with that guy just "forgetting" he had his gun? How about if he was on your flight? Last time I checked "I forgot" wasn't a valid legal excuse. Anyone other than an athlete and this would be all over the news as a possible terrorist attack.
I never said I agreed with it dude. I'm just saying that because it is our current environment, we have to live in it and deal with it. Therefore when forming opinions on things, it is something that MUST be taken into account. You can't ignore it because you disagree with it. Or rather, just because you ignore it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Now, I would also say, that no matter what race, if it is a well known athlete, they would not be considered a terrorist. Why? Because they are a well-known athlete. They are more prone to stupidity than terrorism. If its just a random dude, hell yeah they will consider it a terrorist attack. McVey ruined any perception that Terrorists can't be white.
-
That sounds like a long excuse for racial profiling. We were suspicious of Japanese after Pearl Harbor. Were internment camps right because of the "environment" at the time?
Attempting to carry a loaded gun onto a plane regardless of circumstance should be treated the same. For argument's sake thaak, I'll adjust my analogy. You have your shoes off and you are in line ready to go through the metal detector at the airport. There is a white guy in front of you who just went through the detector. All of the sudden, security freaks out, they tackle the guy and pull a loaded handgun out of his bag. Are you cool with that guy just "forgetting" he had his gun? How about if he was on your flight? Last time I checked "I forgot" wasn't a valid legal excuse. Anyone other than an athlete and this would be all over the news as a possible terrorist attack.
I never said I agreed with it dude. I'm just saying that because it is our current environment, we have to live in it and deal with it. Therefore when forming opinions on things, it is something that MUST be taken into account. You can't ignore it because you disagree with it. Or rather, just because you ignore it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Now, I would also say, that no matter what race, if it is a well known athlete, they would not be considered a terrorist. Why? Because they are a well-known athlete. They are more prone to stupidity than terrorism. If its just a random dude, hell yeah they will consider it a terrorist attack. McVey ruined any perception that Terrorists can't be white.
I never said I agreed with it dude. I'm just saying that because it is our current environment, we have to live in it and deal with it. Therefore when forming opinions on things, it is something that MUST be taken into account. You can't ignore it because you disagree with it. Or rather, just because you ignore it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Now, I would also say, that no matter what race, if it is a well known athlete, they would not be considered a terrorist. Why? Because they are a well-known athlete. They are more prone to stupidity than terrorism. If its just a random dude, hell yeah they will consider it a terrorist attack. McVey ruined any perception that Terrorists can't be white.
It's not a matter of ignoring it. It is a matter of not just shrugging my shoulders and saying "sucks to be them (middle eastern) these days."
-
I never said I agreed with it dude. I'm just saying that because it is our current environment, we have to live in it and deal with it. Therefore when forming opinions on things, it is something that MUST be taken into account. You can't ignore it because you disagree with it. Or rather, just because you ignore it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Now, I would also say, that no matter what race, if it is a well known athlete, they would not be considered a terrorist. Why? Because they are a well-known athlete. They are more prone to stupidity than terrorism. If its just a random dude, hell yeah they will consider it a terrorist attack. McVey ruined any perception that Terrorists can't be white.
It's not a matter of ignoring it. It is a matter of not just shrugging my shoulders and saying "sucks to be them (middle eastern) these days."
It's not a matter of ignoring it. It is a matter of not just shrugging my shoulders and saying "sucks to be them (middle eastern) these days."
Acknowledging that a situation exists, and taking it into account when I form my opinions, does not mean that I am ok, agree, or complacent with/about the situation.
-
I am a weapons instructor and I really think people are overreacting about him carrying a gun with a round in the chamber. Guns have so many safety features that the only way for it to go off is for you to purposely pulling the trigger. He has made a big mistake but I seriously doubt he will see any jailtime. He didnt shoot himself in a foot or point it at a teammate. He had no hostile intensions besides it being loaded in a bag. Just lay off of him and give him a break.
I don't see any substantive difference between this really and what Plaxico Burris did....except for the fact that the accident of having this thing discharge didn't happen. Also, remember, this is potentially a FEDERAL offense because it occurred in an airport. Under federal sentencing guidelines a judge may have NO choice but to issue the mandated sentence.
I mean, Plaxico didn't have hostile intent either. They obviously didn't "lay off" him for an equally stupid act.
Hey....the NRA types have advocated for harsh penalties for people that violate the laws, including the gun laws. Don't complain when your chicken comes home to roost.
I don't see any substantive difference between this really and what Plaxico Burris did....except for the fact that the accident of having this thing discharge didn't happen. Also, remember, this is potentially a FEDERAL offense because it occurred in an airport. Under federal sentencing guidelines a judge may have NO choice but to issue the mandated sentence.
I mean, Plaxico didn't have hostile intent either. They obviously didn't "lay off" him for an equally stupid act.
Hey....the NRA types have advocated for harsh penalties for people that violate the laws, including the gun laws. Don't complain when your chicken comes home to roost.
Lets break down the difference between Rogers and Plaxico's incidents:
- Plaxico was drinking alcohol and Rogers wasnt
- Plaxico shot his gun Rogers did not
- Plaxico tried to cover it up Rogers did not
Its pretty easy for me to see there is a night and day difference between the two situations!!!
-
I don't see any substantive difference between this really and what Plaxico Burris did....except for the fact that the accident of having this thing discharge didn't happen. Also, remember, this is potentially a FEDERAL offense because it occurred in an airport. Under federal sentencing guidelines a judge may have NO choice but to issue the mandated sentence.
I mean, Plaxico didn't have hostile intent either. They obviously didn't "lay off" him for an equally stupid act.
Hey....the NRA types have advocated for harsh penalties for people that violate the laws, including the gun laws. Don't complain when your chicken comes home to roost.
Lets break down the difference between Rogers and Plaxico's incidents:
- Plaxico was drinking alcohol and Rogers wasnt
- Plaxico shot his gun Rogers did not
- Plaxico tried to cover it up Rogers did not
Its pretty easy for me to see there is a night and day difference between the two situations!!!
Lets break down the difference between Rogers and Plaxico's incidents:
- Plaxico was drinking alcohol and Rogers wasnt
- Plaxico shot his gun Rogers did not
- Plaxico tried to cover it up Rogers did not
Its pretty easy for me to see there is a night and day difference between the two situations!!!
arent guns outlawed in NY to?
-
But it is also a disingenuous question. I know he didn't mean it that way, so I'm not trying to slam bonedawg or anything. But, and unfortunately, our perception, and the media's interest, is garnered as a product of the environment in which we live. Right now, because of 9/11, the environment is suspicious of middle eastern people. It is sad, but it is true.
Because of this, you can't use your above quote as a valid analogy, because the circumstances negate it.
That sounds like a long excuse for racial profiling. We were suspicious of Japanese after Pearl Harbor. Were internment camps right because of the "environment" at the time?
Attempting to carry a loaded gun onto a plane regardless of circumstance should be treated the same. For argument's sake thaak, I'll adjust my analogy. You have your shoes off and you are in line ready to go through the metal detector at the airport. There is a white guy in front of you who just went through the detector. All of the sudden, security freaks out, they tackle the guy and pull a loaded handgun out of his bag. Are you cool with that guy just "forgetting" he had his gun? How about if he was on your flight? Last time I checked "I forgot" wasn't a valid legal excuse. Anyone other than an athlete and this would be all over the news as a possible terrorist attack.
That sounds like a long excuse for racial profiling. We were suspicious of Japanese after Pearl Harbor. Were internment camps right because of the "environment" at the time?
Attempting to carry a loaded gun onto a plane regardless of circumstance should be treated the same. For argument's sake thaak, I'll adjust my analogy. You have your shoes off and you are in line ready to go through the metal detector at the airport. There is a white guy in front of you who just went through the detector. All of the sudden, security freaks out, they tackle the guy and pull a loaded handgun out of his bag. Are you cool with that guy just "forgetting" he had his gun? How about if he was on your flight? Last time I checked "I forgot" wasn't a valid legal excuse. Anyone other than an athlete and this would be all over the news as a possible terrorist attack.
you must not travel often...becaus ei do, and you have no idea about airports, the security, or the layout of the land...so to speak.
for instance....why would security tackle a guy for having a handgun in his cary-on...which would be in teh x-ray machine at the time they discovered the gun? do you think they would hand the bag to him, then prceed to take his ass down because he had a gun?
so, ill explain this a bit. on the terminal side of an airport (the non-secure side), it is perfectly legal to open or conceal carry a firearm as per the state laws governing each. the security line, which rogers DID NOT PASS, is the federal jurisdiction where state laws are superseded by DOHS protocol. ive seen several people, in a few different countries, get pluked from security lines for having various illegal items, from lighters to liquids to knives to an old guy with a sword in his cane. the simple fact is that many people simply hear the word "gun" and proceed to empty their bowels in the nearest pair fruit of the looms.
so, whereas it seems like an excuse that racial profiling is working in rogers favor, its simply not correct for the media to protray this as a terrorist attack when he's a very well known american.....its not like he has a history of violence, a criminal record, or past involvement with the law. yet, he's getting crucified by many like he used that gun to perforate those around him.
he broke some gun control laws, and will pay for it. so, we as middle america dont get the same benefits as these guys.....big deal. jealousy is the problem....because they have and some dont.
surely, if i was in rogers position, i'd have a conceal carry as well.....benson got mugged, right?
-
It's not a matter of ignoring it. It is a matter of not just shrugging my shoulders and saying "sucks to be them (middle eastern) these days."
Acknowledging that a situation exists, and taking it into account when I form my opinions, does not mean that I am ok, agree, or complacent with/about the situation.
Acknowledging that a situation exists, and taking it into account when I form my opinions, does not mean that I am ok, agree, or complacent with/about the situation.
I'm not saying you agree with it man, it is a charged issue for sure as we can tell even from this forum. My frustration is how this kind of stuff gets treated with nonchalant responses and Rogers can get away with an excuse like "I forgot." It's kind of a big deal to bring a loaded gun into an airport post 9/11 even with a conceal/carry license.
-
Whether it was loaded or not wouldn't matter. He could have had an empty gun that was obviously disarmed in his bag and he'd be facing the same situation. What's the point of having the gun if it's not loaded anyway? Guns aren't happy go lucky toys. They're for one purpose and one purpose only: shooting something. If you own a gun without the intent to shoot something, then you're wasting your time and money, unless it's like an old time collector's item or because of sentimental value.
The fact is he was outright irresponsible to bring a gun to the airport, let alone through the security checkpoint. The fact that he did it is proof to me that he had no intent of using it. It would take a pretty ignorant person to expect to bring a gun through an airport check point and not get caught. I think that's really what it boils down to, the fact that he was irresponsible. The gun didn't go off, he didn't pull it out to shoot someone, he didn't take it on the plane and he's a multimillionaire football player. He has literally nothing to gain from bringing the gun to the airport.
I can't see him getting more than probation or a small amount of jail time, a fine and perhaps the loss of his conceal/carry license. Now from the NFL, I'd expect at least a game or two of suspension and an additional fine. I don't think Holmgren will toss him out on the street though.
-
Even without a carry permit it isn't a fair question. It's a one sided, biased, agenda driven question.
None the less, a dumb move on Rogers part.
I think it is a fair question. He is a public person, and the reporter has the right to ask the question.
Why do you need a gun? Why did you need to cheat on your wife? Why did you need to drive drunk?
Why did you need to commit any kind of crime...or perceived offense.
We ask these poignant questions of celebrities every day. There are whole programs dedicated to asking these questions.
They are fair in today's society for celebrities. They are especially fair if his actions may send him to prison.
He may have the right to refuse to answer, but the questions are fair.
I think it is a fair question. He is a public person, and the reporter has the right to ask the question.
Why do you need a gun? Why did you need to cheat on your wife? Why did you need to drive drunk?
Why did you need to commit any kind of crime...or perceived offense.
We ask these poignant questions of celebrities every day. There are whole programs dedicated to asking these questions.
They are fair in today's society for celebrities. They are especially fair if his actions may send him to prison.
He may have the right to refuse to answer, but the questions are fair
.I think you misunderstand the context in which I use "fair".
It isn't fair in the context I use because there is no answer he could give which would satisfy people who would ask the question in the first place.
You do it in your own reply, equating carrying a gun to cheating on your wife or driving drunk.
There is nothing wrong with carrying a gun while there clearly is with the others.
He is in trouble for his cavalier attitude about the weapon .
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. -
The way it seems to me is that he knew the gun was in that bag and did that on purpose. The reason? Maybe to get arrested so that the browns would trade him off. Why do I think this? Because in to days climate especially since 911, NO ONE and I mean NO ONE could be that f**kin STUPID to do what he did. If he his that stupid we should get rid of him anyway.
Yup....singlehandedly the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/05/sports/s...ml?pagewanted=1
What if he was this guy?
PRO FOOTBALL
Switzer Arrested on Gun Charge
By MIKE FREEMAN
Published: August 5, 1997
* Sign In to E-Mail
* Print
It had been a quiet training camp for the Dallas Cowboys so far this summer, but it seems that no matter how hard they try to clean up their image, someone on the team ends up in trouble. This time, surprisingly, it was their coach.
Barry Switzer was arrested yesterday morning after a loaded .38-caliber revolver was found in his carry-on baggage at the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport.
The incident raises questions about Switzer's long-term future as coach. According to one person in the organization who insisted on anonymity, Jerry Jones, the Cowboys' owner, is furious with Switzer.
It is unlikely there will be any coaching change now, but at the end of the season it is possible that Jones will take a hard look at Switzer's tenure.
Jones was quoted by The Associated Press as saying: ''It's a very serious matter. This is not something that Barry intended to do; however, the oversight cannot be ignored.
''It's a very disappointing mistake on Barry's part relative to what we are trying to accomplish.''
When asked whether the incident put Switzer's job in jeopardy, Jones said, ''That's not something that I'm going to comment on at this time.''
A spokeswoman for the Dallas airport, Angel Biasatti, said security personnel confiscated the weapon and that Switzer was detained for almost two hours before being released on his own recognizance.
Switzer was returning to the team's training facility in Austin, one day after a 34-27 exhibition loss to the Oakland Raiders at Texas Stadium in the Dallas suburb of Irving. He was with two players and an assistant coach at the time of the arrest.
Biasatti said that there was apparently no criminal intent on the part of Switzer. She said that over three dozen handguns have been confiscated by airport officials here this year.
At a news conference yesterday, Switzer said he was ''embarrassed for Jerry Jones and the Cowboys organization.'' He said that he forgot to remove the weapon -- Texas authorities said he did not have a permit for it -- from his bag before he left for the airport.
Switzer said there were children at his Dallas home Saturday and that when he saw the gun on his bed he put it in his bag to hide it from the children. He said he accidentally took the bag to the airport without removing the gun. At the airport the weapon was detected when his bag went through a security scanner. At that point, the police were called.
''All of sudden I realized, 'My God, I didn't take the pistol out of my bag,' '' Switzer said.
''It was an honest mistake,'' he added.
Carrying a weapon into an airport is a third-degree felony, punishable by 2 to 10 years in jail and a fine of up to $10,000. It was unclear whether law enforcement officials would prosecute Switzer.
But his worries will not end there. Employees of the National Football League, its member clubs and players and coaches are forbidden from carrying weapons while traveling on league-related business, as Switzer was. So the coach could possibly face discipline from the league.
A league spokesman said the league does not have a comment because ''we do not know details at this time. We will discuss it with the Cowboys.''
Jones and the organization have worked hard in recent months to clean up the team's image in the wake of several well-publicized brushes with the law and drug suspensions for some its players.
The coach has forbidden players from attending several nightclubs in the Austin area as well as the Cowboys Cafe, which is near the team's regular practice facility.
He has also ordered the installation of security cameras in the dorm rooms where the players stay in order to detect curfew violations.
Players, such as wide receiver Michael Irvin, among several others, have promised they will stay out of trouble.
So has Switzer set back all of those efforts with his arrest? Already there is massive speculation within the organization that Jones is probably angry with Switzer for the embarrassing situation and may try to dump the coach at the end of the season.
Switzer is the third head coach in the organization's history. Under him the Cowboys won the Super Bowl title two seasons ago by beating the Pittsburgh Steelers. Switzer has a 34-14 record in three seasons as coach.
-
Don't matter "which guy" it was, it is still a crime. End of story. Time to get intelligent and realize wtf you are doing athletes/coaches/anyone.
-
I think it is a fair question. He is a public person, and the reporter has the right to ask the question.
Why do you need a gun? Why did you need to cheat on your wife? Why did you need to drive drunk?
Why did you need to commit any kind of crime...or perceived offense.
We ask these poignant questions of celebrities every day. There are whole programs dedicated to asking these questions.
They are fair in today's society for celebrities. They are especially fair if his actions may send him to prison.
He may have the right to refuse to answer, but the questions are fair
.I think you misunderstand the context in which I use "fair".
It isn't fair in the context I use because there is no answer he could give which would satisfy people who would ask the question in the first place.
You do it in your own reply, equating carrying a gun to cheating on your wife or driving drunk.
There is nothing wrong with carrying a gun while there clearly is with the others.
He is in trouble for his cavalier attitude about the weapon .
I think you misunderstand the context in which I use "fair".
It isn't fair in the context I use because there is no answer he could give which would satisfy people who would ask the question in the first place.
You do it in your own reply, equating carrying a gun to cheating on your wife or driving drunk.
There is nothing wrong with carrying a gun while there clearly is with the others.
He is in trouble for his cavalier attitude about the weapon .
There absolutely is something wrong with carrying a gun in an improper manner and in improper places. And his cavalier attitude led to an illegal action.....so it is natural to ask....Why do you feel the need to carry a gun when he carried it illegally and cavalierly. Why shouldn't that question be asked? They can ask: why do you prefer vanilla over chocolate? or do you prefer briefs or boxers? are you a Republican or a Democrat? do you believe in capital punishment? etc. etc. He is a public person and can be asked those questions, and they are fully fair.
And, if he is asked the question: Why do you feel the need to carry a gun? ...and his answer is "for self protection because other Professional Athletes have been assaulted/killed/carjacked....I don't see how that could not be a satisfactory answer. Why do you feel he should be so defensive about it? If his answer is "because I want to prove what a man I am and that I want to roll with my homeys who are all also packing" well, that is an answer I think the public would have a right to know. So, I don't think these gun toters should hide behind a bare statement that "I got a right to carry one".
I got a right to say "F**K you, pussy", but if I say that to him, I think I should justify why I did. Rights can be exercised, but they are not necessarily a shield for a lack of responsibility.
-
By the way, whatever happened to Switzer as a result of his actions? I don't recall any truly serious implications happening to him.
I will say this: I think that the Switzer incident and the Rogers incident are very nearly the same exact situations....and that they should both probably be treated similarly. Of course, the big unknown right now is that Switzer's situation occurred pre 9/11 and things may have really tightened up since then, and consequences may now be much harsher than when Switzer goofed.
-
[quote name='Thaak' date='Apr 6 2010, 12:44 PM' post='166218'
Now, I would also say, that no matter what race, if it is a well known athlete, they would not be considered a terrorist. Why? Because they are a well-known athlete.
pleez. tell me who knows rogers outside of a football fan? the family behind him in the security line probably thought he was the spokesperson for jumboburger. no matter what anyone thinks racial profiling exists and it exists across the board except for white people (and probably asians). it's morally and socially wrong BUT and don't hate me for saying this, it's helped the crime rate in this city for one.
.jpg.a1a2b9a0c33008fdaf4097d8fe2cfd64.jpg "Riffer X"){kind=avatar}
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login