Search results

So we are literally having the conversation all over again. Being charged almost never happens because one guy hitting another guy in the head with a helmet also almost never happens. When it does, it can be charged criminally. Hope this helps.

Here is your original quote: "Lol at y’all trying to implicate crime/assault for an on field incident during a violent sport." Now do you want to tell me that crimes/ assaults are never implicated in violent sports?

Yes, and that was a response to your silly post that it doesn't happen. You're scared to go back and read the actual context of the discussion, because you know you look like a clown right now.

You forgot how this discussion went. I have never once claimed that Garrett should be charged. What I did was explain to you that things on the field or court CAN be criminally charged. Apology accepted, once you have gone back and read it.

Case closed? I would agree. Rudolph did not get suspended.

If? The punishments have been handed out.

Uh, what? Show me ten examples this year of a player in any sport using something like a helmet or a bat against someone's unprotected head.

Because players almost NEVER use their equipment as weapons.

Well you sure are justifying his actions.

And those people lose their rights as citizens, so don't come back whining if Garrett loses his job.

There is a precedent. Don't act as though someone can't be charged with a crime for something that happens during a sporting event.

Okay, keep teaching young football players to use whatever weapon they can find if an opposing player picks a fight. Go ahead and beat the ^%$& out of the guy with a helmet.

Quit acting like they were in a bar fight.

Street fighting is about all he will have left after all this.