"NodakPaul" wrote:
"canadian_vikes_fan" wrote:
"Json" wrote:
The bodyguard was in the club, and was shot and paralyzed.
His story states that he knows pacman is responsible in some sense.
Anyone who brings 80 grand to the strip club, throws it in the air, then has a stripper attempt to pick up some money and you try to fight with her has a problem.
Then the bodyguar comes to save the day, pacman and his "homies" get in an altercation with them, threatens to have him killed, they leave the club and shortly after a man comes in the club and opens fire.
Seems to me that just cause pacman didn't pull the tirgger he had somebody that was associated with him some way or the other do the dirty work.


Sorry, but at the end of the day I just can't change my feelings on this one.
He is quilty in some way or another.
Not sure if it's by association or just plain stupidity, but anyone that causes an altercation the way he did and people end up shot should be held accountable IMO
You see, the problem that I have with this whole situation is that we've only ever heard one side of the story. Granted, from everything I've read, it sure looks like Pacman is guilty of something. But how can a decision be made to suspend him for a year without giving him a chance to tell his side. After he's been given his chance to explain himself, make whatever decision you want for all I care. Go ahead and suspend him for life if that's the punishment that fits. But you can't condemn him based on accusations that he hasn't been given a chance to respond to.
He did get a chance to explain himself.
To the commish directly.
And the commish decided that he should be suspended for a year.

This isn't a court of law where you are innocent until proven guilty.
The NFL is a business, and players who are constantly "associated" with criminals and attempted murderers are bad for business.
The fact that someone in Pacman's party shot and paralyzed a bouncer shows me that he associates himself with trouble.
NP has hit this one out the park.

It isn't a "Guilty" "Not Guilty" issue but rather a company policy violation issue. In this case its the NFL Policy that has been violated.
Not a law that is broken.

No court of law involved.
Its a issue between an empoyee and an employer.

I would like to live in a dream world that says my off hours behaviour doesn't have anything to do with my professional life but that just isn't true.


Anything that the guys and gals that work for us do that negatively impact company name or perception by our customers (i.e loss of security clearance, or getting drunk all night and coming in to late repeatedly, poor performance on the job)..........
poof your fired.


Of course there are certain HR standards that have to be followed (counceling/discussions/evals etc).....
however, in the end.......
poof your fired.

I never have used the term guilty or not guilty.
Just "clean out your desk"
"Pack up your belongings"
"You will be escorted out the door".

The way I see it, he has been counceled (by the commish and I think somehow by the team).
Next up.... Poof your fired.

Better hope he had a good agent who did his contract.