If you have not heard the story, here's a quick little timeline:
1. McClain goes home for his grandpa's funeral
2. McClain goes to a party with his friend, Jerradius Wilingham.
3. McClain beats up Rishard Tapscott at the party. Then shoots a gun next to his head after forcing him to beg for his life.
4. McClain is arrested on misdemeanor assault, firearms and other charges.
5. McClains gun permit (which he took out hours before the assault) is revoked. But it turns out that he had already lost the gun. Oops.
6. McCain plays three days after the assault.
So what do you think? Should McClain have been allowed to play? Here's a couple of links if you want to read more. The first mostly defends McClain, and the second is slightly less forgiving.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/12/05/SPVJ1M8B4Q.DTL&feed=rss.raiders
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/12/03/SP5E1M7OK1.DTL
15 comments:
I think it's a toss-up. While he is accountable for his actions, given the circumstances (his grandfather's death) he was probably out of his normal character. He was also obviously under the influence which makes any person more aggressive and do things they normally wouldn't. In some eyes I know his actions aren't excusable, in any case, given he almost took a life, but Tapscott is still alive. If anything I think that he needs psychiatric help to help him cope with his grandfather's death, if that was the main reason why fell off the wagon, and obviously wasn't in his right mind. However, for the time being I think it's okay for him to play, as long as he gets the help he clearly needs. If something like this happens again though, then no his right to play should be revoked.
Obviously, I think it would be a bigger scene if someone got hurt or killed, but I still think that a double standard is present. I disagree with Kimi in that I do not think that his grandfather's death warrants McClain to be able to go to a party and act belligerently (not to take the plot line from Camus). If a normal citizen were to act in the way that Rolando McClain did, he or she would be reprimanded in some way, but as a result of McClain's status, I think that he got off the hook. He probably won't be excused from his actions, but obviously some action should have been taken. The Oakland Raider's should have benched him.
On a moral level, yeah, I think that McClain should be suspended from playing and maybe even advised to seek some help from a therapist, as his reaction to a stressful situation (i.e. his grandfather's death) was incredibly unhealthy. Also, as the second article pointed out, domestic violence, gang violence, etc. are all cause for suspension from the league; this sort of behavior is just as reckless and wrong. But, then I got to thinking about sports economics and all of the reasons behind keeping players and paying them so much...so I looked at some of McClain's stats, didn't understand them, then asked my dad if he was a valuable or disposable player. My dad said that he was indeed very valuable to the Raiders. So I suppose that, if the team were to lose games due to McClain's absence, it would be more detrimental to the team than having him stick around and getting some negative publicity. I could be completely off base, but that seems like a logical explanation for why his coach wouldn't just spare himself the negative PR.
McClain's actions definitely deserve a punishment, but not in the form of not being allowed to play. I do not see how his charges correlate to his ability to play or not. Yes, he did something bad, but it does not jeopardize his value to his team. As coach Jackson said, "As long as he learns from it, he'll be all right." It needs to be made clear to McClain that this is a warning. If he were to partake in similar actions again, I think it would appropriate then to be punished by not being allowed to play.
I agree with Dustin. I feel like the only reason McClain was not given the usual punishment was because of his valuable place in the Raiders. However, that should not have had any impact on his punishment. No average citizen would have gotten away so easily with pulling a gun on someone else in such a threatening way. Whether or not he is a valuable player should not matter. His actions were wrong and he should have to suffer the consequences that anyone else would. If anything, I think not allowing him to play would have given him an even bigger punishment since he would be letting his entire team down because of his foolish actions.
I think that McClain should have been benched. I think that by allowing him to play, the Oakland Raiders are sending the message that if you are a great football player, you can get away with anything. I think that it's akin to telling Barack Obama that he can go assault someone and then go back to being President the next day simply because he is the president. Regardless of the money on the line for the Raiders, I think that, as a professional football player, McClain is a role model for young fans and should be held to higher standards. He should not have been allowed to play.
It's no surprise that McClain was allowed to play three days after his arrest. After all, with the unforgivably high number of crimes that NFL players commit, the league has been referred to as the National Felons League. Although Roger Goodell, the NFL commissioner has tried to change the reputation by suspending numerous players such as Ben Roethlisberger last season for sexual misconduct, this is still a rampant problem for the league. I personally believe that McClain should have been suspended for at least a game for his crimes. Athletes are seen by many as role models and I think that those who cannot maintain that image should be disciplined.
I agree with Dustin in that McClain got off the hook because of his social status. Overlooking the fact that he had a gun, McCain did assault someone which is in itself is cause for a lawsuit and possibly jail time. I would be surprised if the Oakland PD let McCain out of custody simply because they were fans of him and they really didn't care about him being a threat o society as long as he paid his bail and played in the game. This would go to show the amount of corruption that goes in law enforcement and how people of high social status can get around the law.
While McClain's "misdemeanor" technically is just a misdemeanor, the intent behind his actions rings far worse. The enormity of the physical and psychological trauma he inflicted upon Tapscott is inexcusable, despite the technicality of its classification as a misdemeanor. However, any moral arguments against the Raiders' decision to allow McClain to play would be for our own personal benefit. The NFL is a business, and McClain was simply too valuable to lose over another violent allegation (which are becoming all too common, as Vinh mentioned). If we held all NFL players to our own moral standards, the number of players who we deemed fit to play would be greatly reduced. Thus, while McClain's action are despicable, the Raiders would have accomplished nothing by suspending McClain. Any moral precedent they could have set would quickly be overturned by another team allowing another player who committed another misdemeanor to play.
Pointing a gun at someone and making him beg for his life after beating him up and firing a gun by his head, possibly causing hearing damage, is only misdemeanor?
And on top of that,the NFL and the Oakland Raiders are powerful enough that they can afford let and someone who did something so violent play (and please his/the team's fans) not long after committing the "misdemeanor"?
Most people don't beat someone up, point a gun, and threaten to kill under the stress of grandparent's death.
I can't really hold much respect for the NFL and the Raiders after this. Not that I had much respect before.
The NFL should have benched him. By letting players play after committing crimes, they have let their own version of moral hazard creep in. Athletes can do whatever they want and still get paid. It is disgusting what this guy and other athletes get away with. And as long as the NFL and other professional sports leagues command the worship from the American people, they will keep letting people like McClain play without repercussion while they get paid more than actually useful people like teachers.
As the previous posters have said, in the economics of the situation, it is more profitable to let McClain play.
Maybe it is an informal amendment to the Constitution that people the public worship can get away with crimes.
I completely agree with Taylor. He is a valuable asset to the Raiders who need him now more than ever because they are in a tight race for the playoffs. He did something terrible, and he deserves to be punished, but not by the NFL.
I think Rolando McClain should have been suspended for a couple games because of his actions. I would have thought that there was something stated in his contract for getting in trouble with the law that he would had him suspended for a couple of games but i guess not since he played in the raiders game last week. I agree with sam that he got off the hook because of his social status.
I'm sorry to all those Raiders fans out there, but I do have to agree with Robert. McClain should have been suspended for at least a few games. I mean it only makes sense. When a professional athlete does something against the law, he/she too should be punished. It sets a bad example to all the youth who are fans of McClain Pro athletes buy their way out of their "problems" all the time which personally I don't think is very fair. I understand maybe he did have emotions bottled up due to the tragedy of his grandfather's death, but he had no right to hurt or threaten someone. If I had done that, I would have probably gone to jail! Like Sam said, it's all about his social status.
Obviously not a good look for the Oakland Raiders as a football program, and not a good look for the city of Oakland. With that being said this was right after his grandfathers death and I'm sure he was going through some hard times. The man defiantly needed to be suspended for a little longer than he was, but I'm sure with all the money he has he can afford a top notch lawyer who helped him get out of it.
I agree with the comments left by Dustan and Suzy in saying that the death of his grandfather should not have played any significant factor in his actions on that night. I think it is more that he may have been intoxicated and/or his possible ego because of playing in the NFL could have played a role in his actions. And although nobody was killed, it still presents the idea that "celebrities" can get away with almost anything. As Simone said in the blog, he played just 3 days later. I agree with Suzy in saying that he should be suspended from playing because if nothing ultimately happens to him, then it will just lead him to believe that he is invincible and can get away with this again.
Post a Comment