Mojician on NFL Violence
.
As a True Believer in the values of the Founding Fathers, I'm not quick to hand the government control over the personal choices of individuals. However, there is a point at which choice crosses the line. Society doesn't permit ritual duels on a reality show - sign a contract, both agree to a life-or-death manhunt, survivor gets five million. We think that Mojician will confirm that if two men voluntarily enter into a duel, the survivor is chargeable with first-degree murder.
It's hard for some young folks to get ahold of the idea that you can be committed to a cause (e.g. the government is there to punish evil, not to parent the citizens) while still applying those principles in nuanced ways. My takeaway from Matt's post was that --- > he believes that the NFL is over the line as it pertains to the damage in inflicts on its players. Sure, some things are over the line. I don't believe that riding a motorcycle without a helmet is even close to that line, but I believe that ritual duels are, and it's possible that the NFL is.
I always wonder about intent-to-injure ... a Saints defender trying to take out a QB's ACL ... and whether it should be charged as a crime off-field. Wonder whether Mojician would go for a law that allowed prosecution for this specific behavior.
Mojiician - if you just joined us, he's a trial lawyer - with a sparkling post on the subject. Kibitzing in italics...
.........................
Its good to have a hurt conscience for people who are incredibly reckless with their bodies. We see it every day. This morning I passed a streets worker who was sawing a hole into a street with a carbon-disc saw and spewing clouds of powdered concrete into his face without a respirator. Will that dude live to see seventy? I don't think so. Did I stop to say anything, such as "get a mask, you're killing yourself". Nah. I just walked by. He probably already knows that breathing rocks is bad for him. Next time maybe. . .
(Breathing rocks is bad for him ... heh! - jjc)
People are also killing themselves with sugar, processed foods, partially hydrogenated soybean oil and the like. If you think diabetes is no big deal, wait until the doc saws off one of your legs (a medical doctor, not the proprietor of this site who wrote a dissertation on pitching wind ups).
(The sugar thing especially. I fully expect to see Coke used, one day, as a springboard into passing laws that give government fascist control over our personal lives. You know, diabetes costs the system X number of dollars, and therefore we have the right to regulate sugar consumption, and therefore... did you see in Demolition Man how Sandra Bullock intoned, "Salt is bad for you, hence illegal"? It ain't my side of the fence that is battling to move the ball in that direction, kiddies. -jjc)
We see this kind of stuff every day. Ghost is right. Football players are ruining their brains for a few years of fame and fortune. My favorite example of a celebrity who sacrificed his brain for fame and fortune is Mohammed Ali. His great scheme was to allow George "I can kill a normal man with either hand" Foreman to beat him to death until Foreman got tired and passed out from moving his tremendous arms. It worked great. Nowadays, Ali can barely talk, while Foreman is still in good health and still selling his grills. Was it worth it? Ali has his pride intact. He gets to call himself "the greatest" and doesn't seem to mind the terrible price he paid. Both Ali and Foreman seem to be happy.
There are even more dangerous entertainments than football. Car racing comes to mind as the most deadly sport. Also, David Blaine, the illusionist has come close to killing himself several times. I hope he doesn't wind up like Houdini, but isn't that why people pay to watch him?
(Or the guys on JackA**, like Johnny Knoxville, whose courage and pain tolerance dwarfs that of NFL players ... compelling description of the Rumble In the Jungle. In 30-odd years that's the best short summary I've EVER read. - jjc)
Now as far as the audience: Are NASCAR fans aiders and abetters to murder? Sure. The elements fit. It is known as reckless indifference murder, depraved heart murder, or murder in the second degree in most places. You commit it by doing something that creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death, not caring, and then killing someone. Nick Adenhart's killer was convicted of this. He knew drunk driving was bad because he might kill someone, it was his second offense, and he did it anyway. An aider and abetter is someone who encourages or facilitates an offense. When you look at racing, a fan knows that a certain percentage of race car drivers are going to die from horrific car wrecks, and he doesn't care, and he pays to promote the sport. In fact, most race fans like a little bit of violence. Last I heard, Daytona, and Talladega, the two fastest and most dangerous tracks in the U.S. are the most popular.
(My wife's dad watched specifically hoping to see deaths. When I met him, he was watching a motorcycle race, I asked about the Seahawks. My future wife said, don't you think a football pass is more exciting than watching guys go around in a circle? He snorted loudly. HAAA! "How'd you like to see a guy wipe out doing a hundred miles an hour!"
Mojo's description of 'reckless indifference murder' puts in front of us the entire question: is it okay for societies to 'wink at' inconsistencies in our own laws? What is the justification for our saying, okay, in MMA it is okay to try to injure other people? What is the legal basis for our looking the other way? I'm not saying there is none. I'm curious as to what the underlying logic is. - jjc)
Fight fans (I've been guilty of this) are the worst. When Brock Lesnar throws someone down and starts smashing their head, everyone cheers.
Are these things right?
(The flip argument is that death bothers us, but everyone dies. Is it really a tragedy when someone accomplishes something great and heroic, finishes their work, and then dies at a young age? People are inspired by greatness. It distracts them from the pain and tragedy of life, which for many people is short, futile, disappointing and obscure. The human turnover is 100 percent per century and people are measured by how they lived, not how they died.
Picture us all lining up to be born, as little babies as it were ... taking our choices. Doctor, lawyer, rock-breather :- ), man, woman, athlete, blogger, each associated with 67 years of life, 74 years, early Alzheimer's, high IQ, low IQ, good looks, bad looks, whatever... only 1 in 25 babies are born in America, guys.
Who is to say that the length of life is the first, or only, consideration? - jjc)
.......................
Thanks Mojo!
- Jeff