Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

JohnnyFootballStar t1_j1kehy4 wrote

Reply to comment by bga93 in Texas coach Chris Beard's fiancee says he didn't strangle her. by PrincessBananas85

Of course that can do anything they want, but that doesn’t mean they should.

12

bga93 t1_j1lu1pf wrote

If thats what gets your jimmy’s rustled and not the domestic abuse idk what else to tell you

−2

JohnnyFootballStar t1_j1m36cq wrote

It’s possible to be concerned with two things. The original comment said he should be fired already. I was addressing that. Do you really believe that it’s not possible to both think domestic abuse is bad and that an indefinite, unpaid suspension is a sufficient punishment for now? I wish I lived in your black or white world. Sounds easy.

2

bga93 t1_j1m3hpm wrote

I mean my comment was just responding to the actual definition of due process and y’all didn’t like that either so i doubt anything you say is in good faith

−1

JohnnyFootballStar t1_j1m42l6 wrote

Well you got me. I used due process in an informal sense and not a legalistic sense. I must support domestic abuse. Well played.

You keep right on thinking that someone should be fired for any accusation. I’ll continue to believe that an indefinite, unpaid suspension is enough until some sort of due process…er…investigation has taken place.

2

bga93 t1_j1m4dmq wrote

So what you’re concerned with then is workers rights because the latitude given to employers in at-will (i think i said right to work previously) states is a little unfair

Hey Im concerned with that too, but i don’t use domestic abuse cases as the poster child for my cause and then defend said accused abuser

−1

JohnnyFootballStar t1_j1m4xjs wrote

So if someone says he should be fired and I disagree, I should NOT say anything because it makes a bad “poster child” for my point? Fairness is important all the time, not only in the most egregiously unfair cases. I clicked on a thread to find out what the deal was with this. I saw an opinion I disagreed with. I said something. Nowhere is it implied that this is supposed to be a “poster child” for anything. If you jumped to that conclusion, you should reevaluate. People can care about two things.

2

bga93 t1_j1m5ncq wrote

I mean if we want to act like we don’t know anything about domestic abuse and this is a brand new, never before seen concept that we have to grapple with for the first time.. your point is perfectly reasonable

But thats not the case now is it? Shit doesn’t happen in a vacuum and if you want to say the incredibly low percentage of false accusations somehow gives you pause in evaluating this, I can say the opposite using the exact same stat. Its up to you which side you want to fall on is all

0

JohnnyFootballStar t1_j1m6gp7 wrote

It’s possible to believe he’s almost certainly guilty while also thinking there should be an investigation before his employment is permanently severed, especially since they have already suspended him without pay. You don’t think that’s the case, I disagree. That’s fine.

2

bga93 t1_j1m6wud wrote

I would support that concept for victimless crimes like drug use/possession, etc. just not when the the abuser has any position of authority/power to continue their abuse

My apologies if I misunderstood your position then

1

JohnnyFootballStar t1_j1m7gnv wrote

I think you did misunderstand since in this case the abuser has very much been removed from their position (without pay) until they can figure out what happened, which I support. Have a good one!

2