Jump to content
TripNSweep

Ohio State scandal

Recommended Posts

Title 9 for Urban and his wife

But Title 9 relates to, in this case, the alleged victim. The situation is something that happened to somebody who has no official designation with the school. Neither student nor staff. The “reporting” was done friend to friend under no university business. Nor did any of it take place on university grounds or at university function. Granted I’m not a lawyer. Just repeating what I’ve heard from the lawyers who have talked about it on talk radio. And apparently there’s precedent from a very similar situation, and that was not a title 9. However as others have said, we don’t know all the facts at this point. So...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Triggered much?  The way I read the above, you're insinuating that a person posing theoretical arguments (ahem... me...) is a disgusting human being.  I sincerely hope I am misinterpreting.  

 

My entire argument is about "moral authority" and who defines it.  Your "opinion" is that one "should probably" report that individual to the authorities.  OK.  Cool.  But I can gather quite a few people who have a drastically different belief system that are guided by their theology that would suggest otherwise.  Is their moral authority greater than, equal to, or less than... yours?

 

All I'm asking is "where is the line?", as the line is perceptively becoming closer to and closer to the penalization and the criminalization of "everyone".  

 

I only get triggered but stupid analogy's.  You used smoking pot as an example of a manager knowing their employee smokes pot, but doesn't say anything.  That is an apples & oranges comparison to beating your wife.  if I smoke pot, it only impacts me.  If I throw my wife into a wall (while pregnant) or use physical abuse against her, then that is assaulting another person.   If said wife is sending text messages & pictures of the abuse to the wife of the head coach, who reply's to a text message saying, "He scares me"...then the "moral" thing to do in that situation is to document the issue, perhaps notify authorities, certainly notify any higher ups & potentially just fire the individual.  It's not really that difficult. 

 

The issue at hand is Meyer's denial last week of even knowing about it from 2015, despite a text message chain that says "Urban says Zach Smith denied that it happened".  I predict he gets fired in the next week...and rightfully so.  If the episode in 2009 wasn't enough to just move on from the asst. coach, then he deserves everything coming his way.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I'm asking is "where is the line?", as the line is perceptively becoming closer to and closer to the penalization and the criminalization of "everyone".

Fair question. On one end of the spectrum we have a morality police state requiring citizens to report all rumors of inappropriate behavior, to investigate and take vigilante remediation or risk after-the-fact legal prosecution, loss of employment and social media condemnation; on the other end we have a hear-nothing, say-nothing, do-nothing state of moral apathy.

 

Worst of all, the position of "the line" is a flavor-of-the-day thing for press and social media mob; they push "the line" up and down the spectrum depending on tangential agendas.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give Urban a break. 2009 was a different time. Knocking your wife around was considered to be eccentric rather than criminal. 

Eccentric is such a great word.

 

This is what it means to me professionally:

 

TYPE.PNG

 

not this:

Old-George-Bush-witth-Medals-56178.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My concern is this... regardless of "who" you are... Coach... Assistant Coach... VP... Worker Bee... Player... customer... where does it stop?  Where is the "line".  In all of these instances, the "bystander" is being criminalized.  

 

Quite frankly, the "crime" is related to the person.  I personally do not know if I care if someone knows/knew of "scenario A, B, or C" happening.  They are NOT involved in the crime.  They are NOT involved in the abuse.  They are NOT involved in the situation.  

 

So the "boss" keeps a person employed for something unrelated to their job.  I'm not sure if this is material to the individual and their effectiveness in the role.  Here's a great example.  Suppose you're a people manager.  You find out that your employee is doing something illegal... i dunno... maybe smoking Marijuana.  Your employee is a top performer.  They are breaking the law (clearly) as there are laws against smoking pot, and traditionally, workplaces have low/no tolerance for it... but... you also value your employee's contributions.  

 

Your employee gets caught by the VP of HR in some way, and they implicate you, the boss, as knowing that this was going on.  My question is... does it matter?  Is it the bosses fault?  Work is getting done.  Productivity is high.  Workplace is fine.  The boss doesn't have to necessarily "agree" to what the employee is doing on their own time, but if it's not impacting the job that they are hired for, does it matter?  Is it a depiction or articulation of character?  Potentially, but by whose moral authority and by which standard?  Is it more or less moral (per se) to be a silent bystander or to blow the whistle?  And... by which moral authority is that line being defined?  Some cultures find it obtuse to know ANYTHING or to intervene in anyone's predicament.  Others believe that its for the best "social good".  

 

In my humble of humblest opinions, this criminalization of the bystander is going a bit too far.  If you see a man strike a woman on the street... you know about it... are you guilty for not saying anything?  If you're the landlord, and your tenant is doing the same thing, is the landlord guilty? 

 

Where is the line?

 

Sure as hell wouldn't want to live in your world.  Smoking dope only affects (directly) the user and is voluntary.  Physical abuse/violence is not voluntary for the recipient - two very different things.

 

"If it's not impacting the job that they are hired for, does it matter?"  A few possibilities:

 

-) your employee runs a little meth lab down the block from a middle school - 'get 'em while they're young', he says.  But he never brings his side business on your premises.

-) your employee runs a little brothel after hours - 'I like the foreign ones best, they don't know that they can quit any time.'  But he never brings his side business on your premises.

-) the tenant in your rental beats his wife and kids whenever you go by to check on your property - but he doesn't damage the property and he always pays early.

 

In your world, profit comes ahead of everything?  There is no line?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure as hell wouldn't want to live in your world.  Smoking dope only affects (directly) the user and is voluntary.  Physical abuse/violence is not voluntary for the recipient - two very different things.

 

"If it's not impacting the job that they are hired for, does it matter?"  A few possibilities:

 

-) your employee runs a little meth lab down the block from a middle school - 'get 'em while they're young', he says.  But he never brings his side business on your premises.

-) your employee runs a little brothel after hours - 'I like the foreign ones best, they don't know that they can quit any time.'  But he never brings his side business on your premises.

-) the tenant in your rental beats his wife and kids whenever you go by to check on your property - but he doesn't damage the property and he always pays early.

 

In your world, profit comes ahead of everything?  There is no line?

 

The gross assumption here is, in my devil's advocacy, one believes that what I stated to be my own personal opinion.  Yes.  I'm a bit torn as to this specific situation... but...  my commentary was intended to spur a greater discussion (which, the embers are smoldering on).  

 

"My world" is the the same world that you live in, just coming from different angles.  In my world,there is a line, and it's typically defined in a deontological matter of using the Golden Rule. It sounds cliche, but gosh darn it...it works.

 

* Would I prefer that my employee doesn't run a meth lab a block from a middle school?  Well... considering my daughter is entering 6th grade... you betcha.

*  Would I prefer ... ... ... doesn't run a brothel after hours?   Well... brothels are legal in Nevada, so I suppose it depends.  In Ohio, four women living in the same house may be defined as a brothel, depending on which town you're in... so... it depends.

* Would I want my tenant to beat their wife and kids?  Heck to the no. But... in that scenario, one has to also weigh the risks.  Where is this rental located?  Is it "safe" for me to report?  Will the police actually show up?  Will someone "narc" on me for "calling it in"?  Does it endanger my own life, family or well-being?  

 

At the end of the day, IF it is proven that Meyer did absolutely nothing, looked the other way, I do feel that in today's society and with our cultural norms, it's within "moral authority" to state he should have, and he should face some type of penalty.  However, if it is proven that Meyer called the cops (which I'm hearing he did, or someone near did), and that he felt that it was between the law and that person, then I have a more difficult time chastising someone for allowing the law to run it's course.  

 

All in all, I think you helped illlustrate my point, in which there needs to be a line.  One too heavy swung one direction is bad for the mojo, while swung too heavily in the other is also bad mojo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What didn't Meyer know and when didn't he know it?

 

I'll wait til the facts are a bit more clearly laid out before I start shooting him.

 

In watching and reading about Sports over the years - this is nothing new.

 

Warren Moon is a Wife Beater.

 

Joe Paterno knew of Sandusky molesting kids as early as 1976.

 

Minnesota Vikings hired back a convicted Child Abuser.

 

Just how much information or guesswork does one have to get into before they are in trouble for not reporting suspicions or gossip?

 

As for not being aware of police reports - most of us have no idea if our close friends or even family have some on file.

 

I'll wait for more information before jumping on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure as hell wouldn't want to live in your world.  Smoking dope only affects (directly) the user and is voluntary.  Physical abuse/violence is not voluntary for the recipient - two very different things.

 

"If it's not impacting the job that they are hired for, does it matter?"  A few possibilities:

 

-) your employee runs a little meth lab down the block from a middle school - 'get 'em while they're young', he says.  But he never brings his side business on your premises.

-) your employee runs a little brothel after hours - 'I like the foreign ones best, they don't know that they can quit any time.'  But he never brings his side business on your premises.

-) the tenant in your rental beats his wife and kids whenever you go by to check on your property - but he doesn't damage the property and he always pays early.

 

In your world, profit comes ahead of everything?  There is no line?

Pretty sure the fact that you're even swinging by in the third scenario would be illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Major college football is a scam.

 

Look at OU (player punches woman) and get back to us.

 

Heisman boy Mayfield publicy drunk scuffling with cops too. No big deal.

 

Why wasn't Bob Stoops immediately fired?

 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

None of those are on par with a coach abusing his wife. Joe Mixon punched a woman, true...AFTER she cornered him and wouldn't stop pestering him. She was drunk and abusive, and Mixon punched her in the mouth. Frankly, she had it coming. Regarding Mayfield: OMG, a young college student GOT DRUNK??? That's NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE!!!

 

Gimme a break. What Mayfield/Mixon did were unpredictable things by stupid kids. A coach on Meyer's staff was routinely beating his wife and Meyer had no problem with it. Huge difference. That, in addition to the further evidence of the ****heads Meyer brought in at Florida shows, quite clearly, that Meyer has no moral values whatsoever.

Edited by TobusRex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you provide a video that shows the woman attacking MIXON first??? LOL...and you think a guy fighting back is worse than a dude regularly beating the **** out of his wife??

 

What is wrong with you??

You're an enabler. No man should punch a woman in the face.

 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Urban Meyer did exactly what Jim Jordan should do-issue a statement admitting that he misled the media but followed proper reporting protocols at the time (Meyer to Gene Smith and Jordan to Hellickson). In each case, the administration is at fault. You can argue that Meyer or Jordan should have done more, but at the end of the day, these types of abuses are not their responsibility to investigate-that responsibility lies in the hands of the administration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you provide a video that shows the woman attacking MIXON first??? LOL...and you think a guy fighting back is worse than a dude regularly beating the **** out of his wife??

 

What is wrong with you??

Excellent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, the media is an enemy of our American people.  Donald says so.  

Some of the so called media is.  I heard he retweeted..  said that the fake news was the enemy, which I am in total agreement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My concern is this... regardless of "who" you are... Coach... Assistant Coach... VP... Worker Bee... Player... customer... where does it stop? Where is the "line". In all of these instances, the "bystander" is being criminalized.

 

Quite frankly, the "crime" is related to the person. I personally do not know if I care if someone knows/knew of "scenario A, B, or C" happening. They are NOT involved in the crime. They are NOT involved in the abuse. They are NOT involved in the situation.

 

So the "boss" keeps a person employed for something unrelated to their job. I'm not sure if this is material to the individual and their effectiveness in the role. Here's a great example. Suppose you're a people manager. You find out that your employee is doing something illegal... i dunno... maybe smoking Marijuana. Your employee is a top performer. They are breaking the law (clearly) as there are laws against smoking pot, and traditionally, workplaces have low/no tolerance for it... but... you also value your employee's contributions.

 

Your employee gets caught by the VP of HR in some way, and they implicate you, the boss, as knowing that this was going on. My question is... does it matter? Is it the bosses fault? Work is getting done. Productivity is high. Workplace is fine. The boss doesn't have to necessarily "agree" to what the employee is doing on their own time, but if it's not impacting the job that they are hired for, does it matter? Is it a depiction or articulation of character? Potentially, but by whose moral authority and by which standard? Is it more or less moral (per se) to be a silent bystander or to blow the whistle? And... by which moral authority is that line being defined? Some cultures find it obtuse to know ANYTHING or to intervene in anyone's predicament. Others believe that its for the best "social good".

 

In my humble of humblest opinions, this criminalization of the bystander is going a bit too far. If you see a man strike a woman on the street... you know about it... are you guilty for not saying anything? If you're the landlord, and your tenant is doing the same thing, is the landlord guilty?

 

Where is the line?

The line is when it impacts others

 

I don’t care if one of my employees smokes weed

 

I do care if they beat their wife, steal, get in fist fights, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...