Travis Henry is a sick f*^k?

[hchamp]

Originally Posted by Ambulance Chaser

If this case was about Henry beating up women, I would agree with you. But there is an element of consent here not present in the dog-fighting story. I'll bet a lot of these women were looking for a meal ticket.

But it's not about the women. It's about the kids. They're the ones who suffer most by not having their father around to raise them.

Are innocent children somehow less important than dogs?

 

[hchamp]

And if these were white kids instead of black, I wonder if there would be a different media response. Seems like of all the groups in this country, black kids are pretty much at the bottom.

 

[chronoaug]

What a terrible thread.

It said that he didn't handle his money wisely and while that's dumb, oh well. He tried to borrow money to handle the situation and now the govt is stepping in and enforcing things differently with him. Seems like things are getting handled and the fact that he has so many children with so many women isn't really an issue. It seems that the article is more of a moral attack on Henry than a legal problem such as with michael vick. Also, while it may be a good moral thing to be there and raise your kids, he isn't legally obligated to ever actually see what they look like. Is it right? No but since they're trying to fix the financial thing, people can't morally police him to do something he doesn't have to do.

I don't think goddell is going to start policing people's sex habits. I guess the blogger would've supported suspending wilt, shawn kemp, mo cheeks, and thousands of other athletes over the year.

Basically, this isn't goddell's area of business to meddle in with suspensions. Things have been done, are being done currently, and will be done in the future to fix things. For the same reason, that pacman can go to strip clubs or get married and cheat on his wife all he wants and goddell shouldn't concern himself. However, the pacman at stripclubs thing was more about his posse creating violent and illegal problems.

Comparing this to the michael vick scandal seems like more of a cop out to get the reader's attention and create controversy. It's not even about the dogs being tortured and dying (which is really horrible). He's getting in huge trouble for soliciting a gambling ring across multiple states not for killing dogs. That's the bigger crime in the eyes of the law at least regardless of which one the public views as worse.


Also, my mom to this day hates larry bird for similar things. Bird has a dark past with his daughter. Refusing to acknowledge her, going out of his way not to see her, etc... There was a thing on 20/20 10 years ago i think. A lot of people don't really seem to know or care about it though. They especially don't call for suspensions or actions from the NBA. Does race play a role as some are discussing in this thread? I don't know, but it's possible.

 

[hchamp]

By your argument the league should have kept its mouth shut about Vick because the law took care of business. But it didn't. It censured and suspended him. For Henry, otoh, not a word.

By its actions (and inaction) the NFL is saying that while it's wrong to kill dogs, it's perfectly OK to sire as many kids as you can out of wedlock without any intention providing support.

 

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by hchamp

By your argument the league should have kept its mouth shut about Vick because the law took care of business. But it didn't. It censured and suspended him. For Henry, otoh, not a word.

By its actions (and inaction) the NFL is saying that while it's wrong to kill dogs, it's perfectly OK to sire as many kids as you can out of wedlock without any intention providing support.

I haven't followed things enough to really have an opinion (except that Vick and Henry both seem to be schmucks), but I'll note that there are valid reasons for an organization in the NFL's position to discriminate in its willingness to act between criminal convictions (and the underlying conduct established thereby), on one hand, and civil proceedings (and the related conduct) on the other.

 

[chronoaug]

They're actually not. Goodell is also upset because they have talked to the nfl multiple times about this and vick kept telling goodell, and the falcons that he was not involved with this and the nfl and falcons stood by him when it was pretty obvious he was lying.

It's not just "wrong" to kill dogs but it's actually illegal and more importantly, the interstate gambling ring is an even bigger problem from a legal standpoint. You are just making an argument that everyone should be good moral people. The NFL is not sending a mixed message for the same reason i wouldn't expect any sports commissioner take action against a player for cheating on his wife or something. Yea, it's not moral and he should be a better person about it, but that's america for you. If he was a repeat offender for beating his kids or something then i'm assuming there would be some kind of suspension from the nfl. However, he's not actually doing anything worth talking about in the media. Tons of players cheat on their wives and have a **** ton of kids.

Not being a "great guy" isn't illegal and worthy of suspension. Quit trying to get on his case because he's an athlete. Again, are you going to make a thread complaining about mo cheeks, shawn kemp, wilt, or tons of other athletes who are morally corrupt?

Also, we can't hold others to our own moral standards. While i think less of my peers in college getting absolutely passed out wasted at a party and maybe sleeping with some girl, or even cheating on their girlfriend, i'm not going to get all up in arms about it because hey, it's their decision. It's obviously not a big deal to them morally to do those things and since it's not illegal or anything, i'm not going to try to start a campaign th stop them.

 

[hchamp]

Originally Posted by lawyerdad

I haven't followed things enough to really have an opinion (except that Vick and Henry both seem to be schmucks), but I'll note that there are valid reasons for an organization in the NFL's position to discriminate in its willingness to act between criminal convictions (and the underlying conduct established thereby), on one hand, and civil proceedings (and the related conduct) on the other.

Care to elaborate, solicitor?

Btw, it's clear from the articles that Henry has been routinely late in making payments and has had several orders served to him. He was even threatened with jail at one point. Has he simply walked the fine line, so far, or has he actually broken civil law and been in contempt of court for ignoring court orders?

At what point are you in contempt?

 

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by hchamp

Care to elaborate, solicitor?

Btw, it's clear from the articles that Henry has been routinely late in making payments and has had several orders served to him. He was even threatened with jail at one point. Has he simply walked the fine line, so far, or has he actually broken civil law and been in contempt of court for ignoring court orders?

At what point are you in contempt?

Contempt can be confusing, because there exist two different legal concepts: civil contempt and criminal contempt. Same name, different concepts. (Don't blame me -- I'm not the one who thought this stuff up.) Nothing I've seen indicates that Henry was convicted of the latter.

When someone is convicted of a criminal offense, that conviction establishes as a matter of law their guilt and the underlying facts necessary to establish the offense. The same is not necessarily true for civil proceedings. (I'm oversimplifying here.) Thus, all else being equal, it's generally going to be easier to fire/discipline/whatever someone for conduct resulting in a criminal conviction than for conduct that does not.

 

[hchamp]

Originally Posted by chronoaug

They're actually not. Goodell is also upset because they have talked to the nfl multiple times about this and vick kept telling goodell, and the falcons that he was not involved with this and the nfl and falcons stood by him when it was pretty obvious he was lying.

It's not just "wrong" to kill dogs but it's actually illegal and more importantly, the interstate gambling ring is an even bigger problem from a legal standpoint. You are just making an argument that everyone should be good moral people. The NFL is not sending a mixed message for the same reason i wouldn't expect any sports commissioner take action against a player for cheating on his wife or something. Yea, it's not moral and he should be a better person about it, but that's america for you. If he was a repeat offender for beating his kids or something then i'm assuming there would be some kind of suspension from the nfl. However, he's not actually doing anything worth talking about in the media. Tons of players cheat on their wives and have a **** ton of kids.

Not being a "great guy" isn't illegal and worthy of suspension. Quit trying to get on his case because he's an athlete. Again, are you going to make a thread complaining about mo cheeks, shawn kemp, wilt, or tons of other athletes who are morally corrupt?

Also, we can't hold others to our own moral standards. While i think less of my peers in college getting absolutely passed out wasted at a party and maybe sleeping with some girl, or even cheating on their girlfriend, i'm not going to get all up in arms about it because hey, it's their decision. It's obviously not a big deal to them morally to do those things and since it's not illegal or anything, i'm not going to try to start a campaign th stop them.

Spitting on the street is illegal, too, in some parts of this world, but is that worse than a guy cheating on his gf (which is perfectly legal)?

And the big difference in your example is that your buddies hurt themselves. Henry, and guys like him, hurt their kids. They're his kids, yes, but they have rights that society guarantees and is bound to pr.otect So it's not just, "hey, they're his kids, he can do what he wants". It's, "these are kids who have been brought into this world by a deadbeat dad and now it's partly our responsibility to ensure that they are looked after (because if we don't, it's going to come back to bite us in all sorts of social problems and crime)".

And yes, the betting ring is one aspect of the bigger picture in Vick's case. But the whole issue of absentee fathers, kids raised in single-parent homes usually headed by a young and poor woman, the decimation of the family in parts of our population, etc, is the bigger picture of what Henry has done.

And maybe it's just me, but I think the latter is a more serious problem than the former.

 

[Manny Calavera]

Originally Posted by hchamp

Spitting on the street is illegal, too, in some parts of this world, but is that worse than a guy cheating on his gf (which is perfectly legal)?

And the big difference in your example is that your buddies hurt themselves. Henry, and guys like him, hurt their kids. They're his kids, yes, but they have rights that society guarantees and is bound to enforce. So it's not just, "hey, they're his kids, he can do what he wants". It's, "these are kids who have been brought into this world by a deadbeat dad and now it's partly our responsibility to ensure that they are looked after (because if we don't, it's going to come back to bite us in all sorts of social problems and crime)".

And yes, the betting ring is one aspect of the bigger picture in Vick's case. But the whole issue of absentee fathers, kids raised in single-parent homes usually headed by a young and poor woman, the decimation of the family in parts of our population, etc, is the bigger picture of what Henry has done.

And maybe it's just me, but I think the latter is a more serious problem than the former.

Seriously now. Is this a race issue?

 

[hchamp]

Originally Posted by lawyerdad

Contempt can be confusing, because there exist two different legal concepts: civil contempt and criminal contempt. Same name, different concepts. (Don't blame me -- I'm not the one who thought this stuff up.) Nothing I've seen indicates that Henry was convicted of the latter.

When someone is convicted of a criminal offense, that conviction establishes as a matter of law their guilt and the underlying facts necessary to establish the offense. The same is not necessarily true for civil proceedings. (I'm oversimplifying here.) Thus, all else being equal, it's generally going to be easier to fire/discipline/whatever someone for conduct resulting in a criminal conviction than for conduct that does not.

Because the burden of proof is less onerous in civil cases, right?

Is it possible that Henry could be found in criminal contempt, given this is a matter of family (civil) law?

At what point are you in civil contempt?

I ask because I've heard people say that Vick is worse because he's broken the law. But if Henry has been found in civil contempt, he too has broken the law, albeit a different one.

 

[hchamp]

Originally Posted by jonglover

Seriously now. Is this a race issue?

I didn't say anything about "race" in that post. I don't follow you.

 

[chronoaug]

So basically you want the government to make things that you don't approve of illegal? You can do a lot of things to **** up your kids while being around all the time. Bad parenting is a serious problem but you can't legally force people to be good parents. What about the huge obese parents getting their children pizza, donuts and soda every day and turning them into dangerously obese children who will die well before they're supposed to? I'm sure there are some athletes out there who don't teach their kids proper nutrition and have some dangerously obese children, should we suspend them? There are plenty of parents who scream at their kids all the time, ignore their mental needs (while still legally providing enough for the govt) and other things that screw kids up. You can't just blame absentee fathers and claim that the NFL or govt should step in and do something about it besides what is already being done (the better payment plans, life insurance, etc...)

The problem with your moral agenda is that it's a slippery slope. I can't believe you're advocating what you are. I mean, sure it sucks he's not there to raise his kids, but by looking at his track record, you can argue it's a good thing he's not a stay at home dad. Once again, you're assuming that your morals are better than everyone elses and they should be punished for it. You're asking a lot more than what the nfl can do.

The whole problem of bad parents (not giving money, not being there, ******* them up mentally, bad nutrition, not educating them, etc...) is a different issue and if you want to discuss that, please start a thread about it. Don't push your agenda on a seperate issue that should be more about sports involvment in legal cases.

 

[Tokyo Slim]

Originally Posted by hchamp

And yes, the betting ring is one aspect of the bigger picture in Vick's case. But the whole issue of absentee fathers, kids raised in single-parent homes usually headed by a young and poor woman, the decimation of the family in parts of our population, etc, is the bigger picture of what Henry has done. And maybe it's just me, but I think the latter is a more serious problem than the former.
While I'm inclined to agree with that on the whole, it is generally not illegal to be a ****** parent. (outside of abuse, neglect, and etc.) And in the eyes of the law owning and operating an illegal multi-state gambling ring is a more serious offense than skipping your child support payments. Thats just the way it is... right or wrong. I'm not even going to get into the argument that many times, male celebrities, especially athletes, are set up by predatory women who have NO INTENTION of using any child support payments they receive to raise the kid, but instead to raise their own standard of living or buy stuff for themselves. There needs to be just as harsh a penalty for "deadbeat moms" as there is for deadbeat dads.

 

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by hchamp

Because the burden of proof is less onerous in civil cases, right?

Is it possible that Henry could be found in criminal contempt, given this is a matter of family (civil) law?

At what point are you in civil contempt?

I ask because I've heard people say that Vick is worse because he's broken the law. But if Henry has been found in civil contempt, he too has broken the law, albeit a different one.

That's part of it. There are some other, somewhat complicated, reasons.

Generally, to find someone in criminal contempt you'd need to go through the process of charging them criminal, proving the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.

"Civil contempt" is really a coercive tool used by courts to compel compliance with their orders. Whether someone found to be in civil contempt has broken the law is really a matter of semantics. I generally think of "breaking the law" as referring to criminal matters. Being found in civil contempt is more akin to being found to have breached a contract or committed a tort. One could certainly say that these are also examples of "breaking the law", but I don't think they'd fall within most people's understanding of that phrase.