Post by End Zone on Aug 24, 2024 3:32:31 GMT -7
www.spotrac.com/nfl/player/_/id/21778%27/zay-jones
Happy Saturday morning, the day prior to the final PS game for the year. It's all good times after PS game 3.
About Jones, here's more wood for the fire. The man's income is $2.2M on a 1-year contract. A 5-game suspension is 5/17s of that contract. That's a whopping fine. I mean, HUGE. See Spotrac.com link, above.
The Prosecutor for the city of Jacksonville, aka State of Florida, decided the DV charge against Jones was not supported by evidence. The mother of Jone's child claimed alleged neck scratches were made by Jones during an argument. Hence, the DV charge was dropped.
I read the charge. I reviewed the police report. I will not trivialize DV. I do not condone family violence of any kind for any reason. Did something happen in Jones' apartment? Yes. Was it DV? No, per the Prosecutor.
So, why is the NFL taking the man's money if the city of Jacksonville, aka State of Florida, walked back the DV charge? We know the answer.
Like a member said above, the Commissioner wants to protect the NFL's image and be a role model for social justice for all Americans to admire.
Well, this case is an example of product protection. Not being a role model. And not an enforcer of justice (that's the Court's job). The Commissioner has a corporate power to sue his employees to force them to comply with his policy of product admiration. That's a twisted way of saying the Commissioner is wrong on the Jone's decision to suspend for 5 games.
Drop the suspension. Period.
I leave it to individual members to decide if the Commissioner is protecting his product (shield) or making social justice decisions (for politicians).
Happy Saturday morning, the day prior to the final PS game for the year. It's all good times after PS game 3.
About Jones, here's more wood for the fire. The man's income is $2.2M on a 1-year contract. A 5-game suspension is 5/17s of that contract. That's a whopping fine. I mean, HUGE. See Spotrac.com link, above.
The Prosecutor for the city of Jacksonville, aka State of Florida, decided the DV charge against Jones was not supported by evidence. The mother of Jone's child claimed alleged neck scratches were made by Jones during an argument. Hence, the DV charge was dropped.
I read the charge. I reviewed the police report. I will not trivialize DV. I do not condone family violence of any kind for any reason. Did something happen in Jones' apartment? Yes. Was it DV? No, per the Prosecutor.
So, why is the NFL taking the man's money if the city of Jacksonville, aka State of Florida, walked back the DV charge? We know the answer.
Like a member said above, the Commissioner wants to protect the NFL's image and be a role model for social justice for all Americans to admire.
Well, this case is an example of product protection. Not being a role model. And not an enforcer of justice (that's the Court's job). The Commissioner has a corporate power to sue his employees to force them to comply with his policy of product admiration. That's a twisted way of saying the Commissioner is wrong on the Jone's decision to suspend for 5 games.
Drop the suspension. Period.
I leave it to individual members to decide if the Commissioner is protecting his product (shield) or making social justice decisions (for politicians).
