The Aldon Smith thread

Originally posted by BrianGO:

Why are the laws written by men, so sacrosanct?

What laws were not written by humans?

Who said that laws are sacrosanct?

Originally posted by BrianGO:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Yeah even the gun charge won't hold..as he wasn't walking around with his guns..it doesn't say anything about owning guns

Yeah it does. They covered every possibility.

"Possession of a gun or other weapon in any workplace setting, including but not limited to
stadiums, team facilities, training camp, locker rooms, team planes, buses, parking lots, etc., or
unlawful possession of a weapon outside of the workplace;"

The guns didn't have the button thingy's. That made them thundering chaotic death machines.

I saw that..but that's where there's a line...unlawful possession ..they weren't in his possession ..the cops had to search his house to find them and were not on himself like the examples of possession of a gun in the workplace

It still doesn't say he can't own a unlawful weapon

Originally posted by buck:

Originally posted by BrianGO:



Why are the laws written by men, so sacrosanct?

What laws were not written by humans?

Who said that laws are sacrosanct?

Based upon...

If Aldon Smith had stated that he intentionally broke the California law on these magazine buttons as a protest against the law's violation of his second amendment rights, I would more than likely support him.
-- That's commendable.
But, he has not made any such a statement.
-- Therefore, you don't support him? Why is that? Why are the laws written by men, so sacrosanct?

... I am assuming that you feel Aldon Smith's act of breaking the law, is justification for "punishment" and/or suspension by the league.
I know what the policy book says, but many players have broken the law, and have not been suspended. Therefore, there must be another criterion for league suspensions beyond "breaking the law".

I feel it SHOULD be about morality, but I believe it is more about popularity. So the league asks, "Do people WANT a suspension?" Rather than, "Is a suspension morally justified, AND consistent with our past suspensions?"

If the league asked the second question, rather than the first, there would be little reason to suspend Aldon Smith.

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
I saw that..but that's where there's a line...unlawful possession ..they weren't in his possession ..the cops had to search his house to find them and were not on himself like the examples of possession of a gun in the workplace

It still doesn't say he can't own a unlawful weapon

Good point, because technically, that handbook is not a handbook of legal statutes.
However, legally, the word "possession" is very broad, and legally, Aldon "possessed" those firearms, just by the fact that they were in his house.

So it depends on whether or not the NFL is using the word "possession" by it's legal definition. They probably are, because the guidebook was probably written by a lawyer.

Of course, it doesn't really matter. The NFL will do whatever they feel Dick and Jane want, in order to protect the safety of little Johnny.

Originally posted by BrianGO:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

I saw that..but that's where there's a line...unlawful possession ..they weren't in his possession ..the cops had to search his house to find them and were not on himself like the examples of possession of a gun in the workplace

It still doesn't say he can't own a unlawful weapon

Good point, because technically, that handbook is not a handbook of legal statutes.
However, legally, the word "possession" is very broad, and legally, Aldon "possessed" those firearms, just by the fact that they were in his house.

So it depends on whether or not the NFL is using the word "possession" by it's legal definition. They probably are, because the guidebook was probably written by a lawyer.

Of course, it doesn't really matter. The NFL will do whatever they feel Dick and Jane want, in order to protect the safety of little Johnny.

I think aldon has a good chance on an appeal if he gets suspended

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
I think aldon has a good chance on an appeal if he gets suspended

See that's the thing, I'm completely in the dark as to how the NFL's appellate process works. Who argues the case for Aldon? Who does he argue it to? A committee? Goodell?

Originally posted by BrianGO:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
I think aldon has a good chance on an appeal if he gets suspended

See that's the thing, I'm completely in the dark as to how the NFL's appellate process works. Who argues the case for Aldon? Who does he argue it to? A committee? Goodell?

it might be in the dark to us, but there are appeals all the time which go through a process that still would get the final say from RG

Originally posted by BrianGO:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

I think aldon has a good chance on an appeal if he gets suspended

See that's the thing, I'm completely in the dark as to how the NFL's appellate process works. Who argues the case for Aldon? Who does he argue it to? A committee? Goodell?

I'm sure it's like jimmy graham - Goodell decides, Aldon disagrees, it goes into arbitration.

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by BrianGO:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
Yeah even the gun charge won't hold..as he wasn't walking around with his guns..it doesn't say anything about owning guns

Yeah it does. They covered every possibility.

"Possession of a gun or other weapon in any workplace setting, including but not limited to
stadiums, team facilities, training camp, locker rooms, team planes, buses, parking lots, etc., or
unlawful possession of a weapon outside of the workplace;"

The guns didn't have the button thingy's. That made them thundering chaotic death machines.

I saw that..but that's where there's a line...unlawful possession ..they weren't in his possession ..the cops had to search his house to find them and were not on himself like the examples of possession of a gun in the workplace

It still doesn't say he can't own a unlawful weapon

This is about the most b******t word smithing rules lawyer crap I have ever seen. I believe in the second ammendment and have several fire arms and let me tell you having them in your house is most certainly posession and further more he agreed to the laws of his state when he moved to California. Don't like it? live elsewhere for fight it legally. I moved PA from NY and I would never move back given their stance on guns...you are an idiot and in violation of the law to bring illegal guns into a state period....end ...of ...story. There is no moral high ground here just an idiot who didn't bother to abide by the laws of his state.

Do I think it is something the NFL should involve themselves in? No if it wouldnt get you fired from a standard place of work it shouldnt affect you as a player. But if you take the gun charge and DUI in aggregate it gets borderline. I think his self induced exile should be time served for now....but the league and team have to keep him thinking he is on thin ice.

Originally posted by BrianGO:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
I think aldon has a good chance on an appeal if he gets suspended

See that's the thing, I'm completely in the dark as to how the NFL's appellate process works. Who argues the case for Aldon? Who does he argue it to? A committee? Goodell?

It usually starts with the union arguing on the behalf of the player to Goodell. If he still isn't happy there has been precident where these things have even gone to court with both sides lawyering up....but I really doubt it goes that far. Aldon may have done some things wrong in how he acts away from the game, but in terms of his interaction with the league and how he has handled his mess after he has made it, he has pretty much done everything right.

Originally posted by BrianGO:
What more is there to say?

Some people think breaking the law is "bad", and if you do it, you should be "punished". This is related to the concept of "paying one's debts", and if you don't pay your debts, you are bad.

"Debt" is an idea that has been around for a long time, but not since human civilization first began. People in communities used to give things to others freely, if they were asked for. In return, that person would do or give something back at some later date. This was an unspoken, unwritten rule.
"Boy that is a beautiful cow. I wish I had one like that." "Take it, it's your's."
Later on, the person would return the favor, by doing something roughly equal in return.

People have this idea that there was some kind of "trading" system before physical money, but that is not true. It was more like a "morality" system.
In ancient Sanskrit and Aramaic the words for "debt" and "sin", were the same word. Paying back your debt, was a part of civilization.
"I'll give you 40 chickens for your cow", never existed. It is a myth.

In modern days, we declare on paper, how "bad" something is, or what something is worth. This is fine for the law, but not for morality.

For example, Socrates would say, "If a man gives me a sword, and I don't give it back, am I in debt to him? Yes? What if the man went insane and openly told me he intended to kill innocent people at the market with the sword?"

If you have a poor African country who owes "debt" to international banking cartels, are they "wrong" for not paying it back? Yes? What if that country was controlled by an evil dictator 20 years ago, who borrowed the money to buy weapons for his wars, and is now long dead and gone. Are the people living in that country 20 years later supposed to be responsible for this mad mans's transgressions?

Some people feel that Aldon Smith owes a "debt". I think it is absurd. Has he hit his girlfriend? No. Has he hurt anyone? No. Has he cheated the league? No. Has he stolen anything? No.

Do I think the NFL should step in when a person has not hurt anybody, yet has broken the law? NO. Absolutely not. The NFL should suspend players based upon MORAL transgressions. Not based upon breaking the law. The law is the law. It is there for its own purpose. The NFL wants to appear MORAL, not political.
Gun laws are political. DUI laws are moral, but IMO, Aldon didn't appear anywhere near as reckless as other players who have NOT been suspended by the NFL, so that does not add up either.

There is simply no logical basis from which to suspend Aldon Smith. The only basis, is the typical, "Oh my God what a bad man" reactionary soccer mom polemic.

You said a lot here, and I agree with most of it. And I believe you are 100% correct, in that there are worse transgressions that have, or will, receive little to no attention compared to the constant 'ALDONing' we hear. But since when has opinion or the dispensing of justice (moral or political) ever been fair? Aldon's issues (aside from the DUI's) are not alarming to me at all. The number of them, and his stature as one of the leagues big stars, have placed a big hot spotlight on him. And that stupid LAX thing just peeled the scab off, that was just starting to cover things up.

It is what it is with him now. Hopefully he will get through the next month with little to no suspension. The key will be keeping his nose clean, even of the simplest issue. For better or worse, he has a bad rep now. This quote from the movie Top Gun comes to mind (Substitute NFL for Navy). "Your family name ain't the best in the Navy. You need to be doing it better and cleaner than the other guy. Now what is it with you?"

July 25

15 more days

Originally posted by buck:

July 25

15 more days

To quote Danada...

WOOOOOooooooooo!

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

Ahhh, the Ted Kennedy sign