Originally posted by RDB4216:
Originally posted by okdkid:
Also, how is this not a crime? He literally paid people to intentionally injure others.
What makes the Nancy Kerrigan thing a crime and this any different? Intentional is intentional.
If you got caught at work trying to give $1,000 to somebody to intentionally injure a co-worker... not only would you be fired, you'd have charges filed against you.
The difference is, this all occurred within the confines of the game. Hitting someone in football isn't illegal, regardless of the intent. And for the most part, I think the hits in question are legal hits where no flags were thrown, even. What happened to Kerrigan had nothing to do with the sport, and would be the same as hitting a random person on the street.
However, unless the people that received these bounties declared them as income (highly unlikely), then it is a crime - called tax evasion.
Hitting someone in football with the intent to injure is no different than any other place in life -- playing the game gives you no protection from the law against causing INTENTIONAL injury to another person. Your protection from the law for causing an injury is because of the assumption that as part of the practice of the game, there are hazards, but NO malicious intent. As a matter of fact, the NFL rules specifically ban hits and actions that have the intent to injure, which gives criminal and civil legal action grounds for action when INTENT can be PROVED beyond a reasonable doubt.
For example, the Albert Haynsworth stomp that caused injury to the Dallas center Gourode (sp?) could have led to legal action against Haynesworth. Haynesworth only protection to reduce the seriousness of the charges would have been that he acted without fore-thought -- in the heat of the moment -- and as such without intent to maim or cause seriously injury. Also, the person injured has to press charges.
The fact that players were acting with fore-thought and intent greatly increases the severity of the legal consequences -- in both a criminal and civil case. The challenge would be for the attorney's to prove that a specific hit and resulting injury were motivated by the bounty, and were not just part of the game. Proving that would be EXTREMELY difficult -- you would essetnially have to have a witness testify that the player making the hit told them in advance of their intent during the game (it could be in general to hit someone to earn the bounty) and then after the specific hit the player claimed he was motivated by the bounty on that specific hit.
Now, suing the team that sponsored the bounty, now that would be FAR easier -- they are essentially sponsoring a criminal enterprise. Criminal charges could be filed simply on the fact that they paid bounties -- so finding specific instances of payment would have to be proved. Civil charges against the team would probably be a little harder because you would have to show specific damages from the bounty -- and prove a specific hit and injury were from the bounty per above.