Bernard Pierce arrested and released

[redrum52]

Is Doss still on the Jags?

[airconteka1]

Should be used for the next anti drink drive campaign. Drink and drive, play for the Jags.

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

Thought that action could be questionable as well. There still should be due process. Let's just look at the recent DOJ report for example. There's obvious inconsistancies and outright unjustified targeting that has been proven throughout the country.

Nobody should lose a job until due process in the law if not for those reasons alone.

Due process is a right afforded by the Constitution. Privately owned companies don't have to afford those same rights. If they set a moral code more strict than that of the federal government then as an employee your only choice is to abide or find another employer. Which pierce has done.

Making your own rules is one of the perks of owning a company.

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

A couple years ago would Pierce have been released? Probably not. But that doesn't make doing it now wrong.

The organization has been receiving bad press for it's employees being arrested. They afforded employees their day in court and reserved judgement until the legal process worked itself out. They trusted that the players would do best by the organization and under added attention and public scrutiny be on their best behavior.

Several players continued to make mistakes. The team made it clear that for at least a period of time until the attention dies down there is a no tolerance policy in effect. The punishment for messing up was clearly explained and a precedent was set.

If a player can't show a little bit of good judgement and not drive drunk to keep the privledge of earning a buttload of money to play a sport -- don't expect sympathy.

Feeling bad for a grown man in this situation is ridiculous.

[MTRavensFan]

Is Doss still on the Jags?

yep.

went on IR in the preseason, still hasn't played a regular season  down for them.

wishing both him and bernard all the best.

[JoeyFlex5]

i just hate to think... what if joe gets busted on a dui one day? 

 

oh my god the circus that baltimore would turn into...

[RobFuseRaven]

i just hate to think... what if joe gets busted on a dui one day? 

 

oh my god the circus that baltimore would turn into...

 

Thank God we never have to worry about that. I think I can safely say Joe is the one guy that will never do that.

[1/28/01]

i just hate to think... what if joe gets busted on a dui one day?

oh my god the circus that baltimore would turn into...

Yeah, its the same type of idiots in the NFL that get caught with drugs, get DUIs, shoot themselves etc. Joe will be fine!

[JoeyFlex5]

Thank God we never have to worry about that. I think I can safely say Joe is the one guy that will never do that.

 

Yeah, its the same type of idiots in the NFL that get caught with drugs, get DUIs, shoot themselves etc. Joe will be fine!

i know lol i am 99.9% sure that wouldnt happen, joe is as mature as they come, at least for the most part when hes not on camera blurting obscenities that have to be censored on nfl network lmao. 

 

just a scary thought

[K-Dog]

I said the same thing about RR.

[RavenSince1998]

@RavensInsider: Jaguars claim the final year of Bernard Pierce's rookie contract, he's due a $660,000 base salary for 2015

 

Eh... the Jags will suck the football life outta him like they did MJD. Peace and good vibes to Bernard Pierce tho.

[gtalk12]

I had high hopes for Pierce. Shame he never became the player he showed he could be during our run.

 

Good luck

[ratedr]

I said the same thing about RR.

In retrospect there were some questionable things with Ray Rice, like him always fighting with fans on social media and spitting on Phil Taylor.

 

The only time you EVER see Flacco in the news off the field is when a fan takes a picture of him. He is literally the most boring person on the planet. And that's a good thing.

[ratedr]

Will be interesting if Will Hill's child support stuff re-emerges as an issue.

[FlocksGottaFeed]

Due process is a right afforded by the Constitution. Privately owned companies don't have to afford those same rights. If they set a moral code more strict than that of the federal government then as an employee your only choice is to abide or find another employer. Which pierce has done.

Making your own rules is one of the perks of owning a company.

Don't ever think that private companies can create any rules they want for moral and/or any other subjective ideal. That's why there are no children working in sweat shops, indentured servitude, slavery, etc. All companies 'private' or not have to conform to tangible standards of law. As far as the NFL and NFLPA are concerned, that's why numerous unlawful termination lawsuits have been paid-out and are being litigated as we speak. True, you may fire an employee at will, but that does not mean that your company will not have to compensate that employees contract as per agreed before firing.

 

This is why a NFL 'Zero Tolerance' approach to players sets a bad precedent which is not sustainable without setting an unilateral legal precedent established by congress and over-seen by the federal government/Supreme Court. It can not be called a legally 'moral' private company's right. 'Due Process' will win the day in civil charges when the action does not conform to this - every time. Private companies don't stay in business too long without conceding that fact. They adapt and/or pay-out needless lawsuits.

 

That's why our country commits to due process. Don't be misled by the recent Pierce cut and similar off-season cuts. They had more to do with 'calculating collateral damage' and cultural team public positioning than any moral standard. Like every other team, if the player is proven innocent in a court of law after due process financial damages will be awarded. Teams have most likely already accounted for and prepared to pay-out on such occasions.

 

Those low-value cuts aren't as damaging to most teams, but a high-dollar contract can be financially crippling. That is why such a 'Zero Tolerance' standard is unsustainable, but is truly only needed for PR purposes in these current PR reactionary times, only. Business is business - morality does not apply here.

  .

[ravensdfan]

Don't ever think that private companies can create any rules they want for moral and/or any other subjective ideal. That's why there are no children working in sweat shops, indentured servitude, slavery, etc. All companies 'private' or not have to conform to tangible standards of law. As far as the NFL and NFLPA are concerned, that's why numerous unlawful termination lawsuits have been paid-out and are being litigated as we speak. True, you may fire an employee at will, but that does not mean that your company will not have to compensate that employees contract as per agreed before firing.

 

This is why a NFL 'Zero Tolerance' approach to players sets a bad precedent which is not sustainable without setting an unilateral legal precedent established by congress and over-seen by the federal government/Supreme Court. It can not be called a legally 'moral' private company's right. 'Due Process' will win the day in civil charges when the action does not conform to this - every time. Private companies don't stay in business too long without conceding that fact. They adapt and/or pay-out needless lawsuits.

 

That's why our country commits to due process. Don't be misled by the recent Pierce cut and similar off-season cuts. They had more to do with 'calculating collateral damage' and cultural team public positioning than any moral standard. Like every other team, if the player is proven innocent in a court of law after due process financial damages will be awarded. Teams have most likely already accounted for and prepared to pay-out on such occasions.

 

Those low-value cuts aren't as damaging to most teams, but a high-dollar contract can be financially crippling. That is why such a 'Zero Tolerance' standard is unsustainable, but is truly only needed for PR purposes in these current PR reactionary times, only. Business is business - morality does not apply here.

  .

No you're wrong.

Private businesses can make any rules regarding morality they like, they just cannot go contrary to actual law. For example, they cannot go against child labor laws, but they can insist their employees do not have visible tatoos. It is done all the time and quite legally.

If you have a contract, you most likely have what is termed a "morality clause". The NFL has one for all its players. The only reason Rice won his lawsuit was because he was already punished for the offense and the NFL tried to punish him again. He never won anything in a court of law against the Ravens and I'm not sure that he actually would have done so. Depends on how that particular court viewed the teams knowledge of the event against the actual visible evidence and if it deemed Rice was not forthcoming in his example of it.

The Ravens chose to settle out of court, and that is their decision, but no court of law found any wrongful termination of Rice.

[ratedr]

If the Ravens actually went through fighting the Rice lawsuit they likely would've won. Rice had no legal recourse against them. He won against the league because there's a clause in the CBA preventing double jeopardy. Teams, on the other hand, can cut you because they don't like the color of your shirt.

 

The Ravens likely settled because even if they won, the damage that the press from the case would've done from a PR standpoint simply wouldn't have been worth the victory. The trial is sometimes worse than the verdict. The Ravens decided to just cut their losses, settle for about half the amount Rice asked for, and moved on.

[rmcjacket23]

Don't ever think that private companies can create any rules they want for moral and/or any other subjective ideal. That's why there are no children working in sweat shops, indentured servitude, slavery, etc. All companies 'private' or not have to conform to tangible standards of law. As far as the NFL and NFLPA are concerned, that's why numerous unlawful termination lawsuits have been paid-out and are being litigated as we speak. True, you may fire an employee at will, but that does not mean that your company will not have to compensate that employees contract as per agreed before firing.

 

This is why a NFL 'Zero Tolerance' approach to players sets a bad precedent which is not sustainable without setting an unilateral legal precedent established by congress and over-seen by the federal government/Supreme Court. It can not be called a legally 'moral' private company's right. 'Due Process' will win the day in civil charges when the action does not conform to this - every time. Private companies don't stay in business too long without conceding that fact. They adapt and/or pay-out needless lawsuits.

 

That's why our country commits to due process. Don't be misled by the recent Pierce cut and similar off-season cuts. They had more to do with 'calculating collateral damage' and cultural team public positioning than any moral standard. Like every other team, if the player is proven innocent in a court of law after due process financial damages will be awarded. Teams have most likely already accounted for and prepared to pay-out on such occasions.

 

Those low-value cuts aren't as damaging to most teams, but a high-dollar contract can be financially crippling. That is why such a 'Zero Tolerance' standard is unsustainable, but is truly only needed for PR purposes in these current PR reactionary times, only. Business is business - morality does not apply here.

  .

Yes, but the problem is... what does winning a civil suit really mean to a professional athlete? To the average US citizen it might be substantial, but do you think that Ray Rice feels somehow vindicated that he won a civil settlement for $1M from the Ravens? I have no doubt the Ravens would have paid substantially more than that just to have nobody ever ask them.

 

So Ray Rice wins a $1M civil settlement from the Ravens, and now he literally can't find an employer on the planet who will give him a job. That, quite simply, is the power that private companies can yield when it comes to setting their own policies.

 

Again, the legal system sets the MINIMUM standard for behavior in this country, not the maximum. There are countless people on this planet who are fired from their place of employment on a daily basis in this country that didn't violate any of the parameters set forth in the legal system. They simply violated the parameters that their employer set forth for them, which goes above and beyond the law.

 

Many of them will sue, few will win, many will settle out of court for amounts that wouldn't even makeup a years salary for some people, and then they spend the next several years trying to find a job that pays half as much as their previous employer paid them, because their potential employers know what they were fired for and its not acceptable in their place of business either.

 

Simply put, for me, whether or not the legal systems convicts or exonerates somebody in present day society is largely irrelevant. And that's not necessarily a problem, because every person on this planet knows that's the case in this world also.

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

Don't ever think that private companies can create any rules they want for moral and/or any other subjective ideal. That's why there are no children working in sweat shops, indentured servitude, slavery, etc. All companies 'private' or not have to conform to tangible standards of law. As far as the NFL and NFLPA are concerned, that's why numerous unlawful termination lawsuits have been paid-out and are being litigated as we speak. True, you may fire an employee at will, but that does not mean that your company will not have to compensate that employees contract as per agreed before firing.

 

This is why a NFL 'Zero Tolerance' approach to players sets a bad precedent which is not sustainable without setting an unilateral legal precedent established by congress and over-seen by the federal government/Supreme Court. It can not be called a legally 'moral' private company's right. 'Due Process' will win the day in civil charges when the action does not conform to this - every time. Private companies don't stay in business too long without conceding that fact. They adapt and/or pay-out needless lawsuits.

 

That's why our country commits to due process. Don't be misled by the recent Pierce cut and similar off-season cuts. They had more to do with 'calculating collateral damage' and cultural team public positioning than any moral standard. Like every other team, if the player is proven innocent in a court of law after due process financial damages will be awarded. Teams have most likely already accounted for and prepared to pay-out on such occasions.

 

Those low-value cuts aren't as damaging to most teams, but a high-dollar contract can be financially crippling. That is why such a 'Zero Tolerance' standard is unsustainable, but is truly only needed for PR purposes in these current PR reactionary times, only. Business is business - morality does not apply here.

  .

 

You took that in an entirely different direction. The Ravens can, and will continue to cut any player they want. If a player gets arrested, they do not and clearly will not, wait for the legal process to deem him innocent or guilty. Pierce will not have a wrongful termination suit on his hands and if he did he wouldnt win.

 

Those arise when, for example the Rice situation, the team had all the information in hand and made the decision to keep rice. Then the evidence went public and because of the public perception and pressure they cut him. Rice has a case because the Ravens had that evidence and kept him employed, but then later cited the same evidence/behavior as a reason to release him. Thats when a player has a case.

 

Here, with Pierce it doesnt apply. And theres absolutely nothing wrong with the team setting the precedent that if you're arrested you're gone - so long as it applies equally across the board.

 

--

 

and obviously they cant create any rules they want.... go ahead and quote word for word but you know what i meant. An owner of a company CAN set the standard for employment. Many companies wont hire someone convicted of a felony, regardless of the charge, when it took place, etc... I know of companies that only hire Christians. They're allowed to do it so long as they dont advertise doing so. 

[FlocksGottaFeed]

No you're wrong.

1Private businesses can make any rules regarding morality they like, they just cannot go contrary to actual law. For example, they cannot go against child labor laws, but they can insist their employees do not have 2 visible tatoos. It is done all the time and quite legally.

If you have a contract, you most likely have what is termed a 3 "morality clause". The NFL has one for all its players. 4 The only reason Rice won his lawsuit was because he was already punished for the offense and the NFL tried to punish him again. He never won anything in a court of law against the Ravens and I'm not sure that he actually would have done so. Depends on how that particular court viewed the teams knowledge of the event against the actual visible evidence and if it deemed Rice was not forthcoming in his example of it.

The Ravens chose to settle out of court, and that is their decision, but no 5 court of law found any wrongful termination of Rice.

Wrong regarding what?

1 - That statement is just restating what I already posted regarding how standards are applied "All companies 'private' or not have to conform to tangible standards of law."

2 - Visible tattoos? We're talking about due process as it applies to arrests. Come-on.

3 - Morality Clause: "In sum, employers considering morality clauses should be cognizant of the potential legal pitfalls in drafting and enforcing such clauses to avoid litigation regarding interpretation and application of the clause." - HR Legalists

http://www.hrlegalist.com/2014/02/risque-business-controlling-employee-conduct-through-morality-clauses/

 

Getting arrested isn't a 'morality clause' violation. Being found guilty of the charge can be. This is why a NFL 'Zero Tolerance' approach before due process for players sets a bad precedent which is not sustainable (defined: not able to be upheld or defended). This 2014 NFLPA article saids it all:

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/09/05/nflpa-wont-agree-to-policy-immediately-punishing-players-based-on-arrest/

4 - This thread is more about Pierce's arrest and debating 'Zero Tolerance' matters (Rice was never mentioned), but he was reinstated by a former federal judge (who would know a little about federal law) and rewarded a settlement afterwards. It's very possible if his case had gone to a state or federal court he would have gotten the same results.

 

5 - Court of law - Never said that in that reference. Said: "...'Due Process' will win the day in civil charges when the action (immediate firing, suspending, etc. before due process and conviction) does not conform to this." If a player is acquitted after having his employment status, reputation, earnings, etc. negatively affected, team will possibly pay-out needless compensations. The Bounty-Gate is another great example of this. Remember: "Vilma still has a defamation of character suit pending against commissioner Roger Goodell, while sources said other players are considering similar actions pending Tagliabue's decision on their appeals." Vilma defamation of character case was accepted by the courts. If he pursued it further, there may have been another needless pay-out by the NFL.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer/jason-la-canfora/21333179/the-nfl-today-bountygate-settlement-offer-rejected-by-nflpa

 

Lastly, if you don't agree that this 'Zero Tolerance Policy' sets a bad precedent - I won't say you're wrong for having that position. I simply don't agree with it. My point simply was: "Don't ever think that private companies can create any rules they want for moral (a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.) and/or any other subjective (based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.) ideal." without conforming to legal standards and allowing due process. How can anyone judge a behavior until that behavior has been proven?

 

If I'm wrong for that - I'm good. Hope this helped.

[FlocksGottaFeed]

You took that in an entirely different direction. The Ravens can, and will continue to cut any player they want. If a player gets arrested, they do not and clearly will not, wait for the legal process to deem him innocent or guilty. Pierce will not have a wrongful termination suit on his hands and if he did he wouldnt win.

 

Those arise when, for example the Rice situation, the team had all the information in hand and made the decision to keep rice. Then the evidence went public and because of the public perception and pressure they cut him. Rice has a case because the Ravens had that evidence and kept him employed, but then later cited the same evidence/behavior as a reason to release him. Thats when a player has a case.

 

Here, with Pierce it doesnt apply. And theres absolutely nothing wrong with the team setting the precedent that if you're arrested you're gone - so long as it applies equally across the board.

 

--

 

and obviously they cant create any rules they want.... go ahead and quote word for word but you know what i meant. An owner of a company CAN set the standard for employment. Many companies wont hire someone convicted of a felony, regardless of the charge, when it took place, etc... I know of companies that only hire Christians. They're allowed to do it so long as they dont advertise doing so. 

Agreed with most of your statement. The statement "Here, with Pierce it doesn't apply. And theres absolutely nothing wrong with the team setting the precedent that if you're arrested you're gone - so long as it applies equally across the board." Is also true, but I'm not in complete agreement on this. What my post read is that a Zero Tolerance policy for arrests is simply unsustainable and sets a bad precedent - only because an arrest itself is not a proven immoral act.

 

The charge must be proven in court. Nothing of that nature is absolute (just read recent DOJ Report for example). If there's a possibility of acquittal, then there's always a possibility of financial damages to the team that acted prematurely. Although this case may not present problems - policy like that may in future cases. The NFLPA and other non NFL legal experts feel that policies like that are unsustainable for similar reasons, as well.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/09/05/nflpa-wont-agree-to-policy-immediately-punishing-players-based-on-arrest/

As far as the Rice situation, I never brought it up here.

[AsianRice]

Pierce is gone and can we bury this thread?

 

 

Good luck , Pierce....

[FlocksGottaFeed]

Hopefully once this thread is closed, we'll never have to see that 'Zero Tolerance Policy' again. What a bad rap. The Ravens aren't even close to the teams that have numerous arrests and we react like we are? We're below average in all those stats at best. Everyone makes mistakes and deserves due process regardless.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/13/upshot/what-the-numbers-show-about-nfl-player-arrests.html?_r=1&abt=0002&abg=0

 

If they want to come at us with that 'morality' propaganda hit them with stats and facts not reactionary submission.

 

We're RavensNation not OstrichNation. We don't bury our heads in the sand for NOBODY!

 

Now, we can end this thread.

 

GO Ravens!