“In a public space”
If we are to accept that argument, then we must accept that there is no good kneeling on a pro football sideline during the National Anthem, either.
“Most of the players haven’t really given descriptions of what they’re doing and why.”
Oh, I’ll bet they have, and I’ll bet it was recorded, too.
“You’re not under oath in a press conference and it’s not legally binding in any way. So yes they certainly COULD say in court they were praying for justice.”
You do not have to be under oath to betray guilty knowledge. Further, contradicting yourself under oath is a good way to get nailed for perjury.
“There’s no difference between them saying it’s not disrespectful and not caring if it is or not.”
There is when you’re basing the question of misconduct on numbers of boycotters.
“The important part, if you’re going to start talking about reasonable men in a court of law, is that the vast majority of fans are not bothered enough by it to change their behavior”
The question is not whether someone is “bothered” by it.
It is to be expected that anti-American scumbags will not be “bothered” by it, but their complacency is hardly a vote *for* the acceptability of the behavior. Others are deceived by the media. Some are just plain stupid. Many are black racists.
“they will be the legally defined “reasonable men” and the behavior will be declared not offensive.”
You don’t understand the reasonable man standard. That standard will (should) be applied by those who are in possession of the facts in a given case, either the judge or the jury.
“Doesn’t matter what they thought after he explained it. The fact that nobody cared means that it was NOT viewed as misconduct from the start.”
1. Glad to know you have interviewed every American and know their opinions. I know a lot of people who cared, and others must also.
2. When is “the start” for you? The first note of the National Anthem on the first occasion that Kaperwhatever failed to stand? Imposing ridiculous conditions is not a good thing.
“The ratings are down less than 20%.”
Can’t find the article I was reading. Should have saved it. Still, good job sidetracking us onto ratings when that is irrelevant to the issue.
“Ad revenue is actually up. The Verizon contract got renewed at double the price.”
Again, irrelevant to the issue.
“And if you’re going to go to the “reasonable man” then you’re MAKING truth subject to popular vote.”
You do *not* understand the reasonable man standard or its application. Please go read up on it.
“That’s is the point of that structure, the behavior of most folks in most circumstances.”
No, the thinking of a reasonable man in the specific circumstances of a case.
“Player statements constitute absolutely NOTHING because they were not made in any circumstance under which they are legally compelled to speak the truth.”
El wrongadarillo, Hoss.
No we don’t. Again TEBOW. He kneeled for his ENTIRE career. so clearly some kneeling is OK. Bird flipping is not.
Bet all you want. Meanwhile, back in reality, most haven’t.
When the topic of discussion is why you did what under oath is all that matters. And since we’re talking about the contents of their mind you’ll never get anybody for perjury, it’s not possible to prove somebody did that for reasons other than they said on the stand.
YOU based the question of misconduct on the number of boycotters when you ran to reasonable man. I’m just pointing out why you’d lose that path. If you’re going reasonable man the question is 100% about whether or not someone is bothered. That is the ENTIRE point of reasonable man. At this point you’re saying the reasonable man argument is not the reasonable man argument.
Wrong again. The standard is applied by LAWYERS. If the owners lawyers tried to say “it’s misconduct because a reasonable man would consider it misconduct” that opens up the players lawyers to say “what about the 20 million average viewers that didn’t boycott far out numbering the ones that did? Are the minority opinion reasonable while the majority opinion is not?” and the owners lose.
Don’t have to interview anybody. That’s the fun part with things on TV. The ratings and the revenue tell the story. Since the ratings are down in line with the ratings of ALL television viewing (actually less than a lot of TV networks) a decent lawyer can show the so called boycott is negligible and this is just a change in how people consume entertainment.
The ratings are not a sidetrack issue if you’re going to appeal to reasonable men. YOU brought in the wisdom of the masses, I’m showing you what the masses ACTUALLY DID.
Not irrelevant at all. Speaks to why the ratings are declining and the reality of reasonable men. You brought in the wisdom of the masses, I’m showing the masses disagree with you.
I demonstrably understand reasonable men, ratings, chronology, math, and Full Metal Jacket more than you. You’ve been shown to be wrong. Because you are.
The owners could do nothing. You either know that by now or you’re willfully ignorant.