Why don't players try to intentionally injure "bad people"

[sp6488]

2 minutes ago, JonStark said:

A lot of virtue signaling going on in this thread. 

That being said, you can't go out of your way to do it at your place of work unless you want to find yourself unemployed. That's the rest it doesn't happen in the NFL.

Which aspect? Saying why there are good reasons not to do what the OP suggests or calling for players to do something about bad guys?

[JonStark]

4 minutes ago, sp6488 said:

Which aspect? Saying why there are good reasons not to do what the OP suggests or calling for players to do something about bad guys?

The aspect of calling someone a bad person for going after bad people.

Each case is different but if someone does something legitimately evil, I have no problem seeing them pay for it. 

[SkippyX]

Like this?

[Dr LBC]

2 hours ago, sp6488 said:

On 3/17/2022 at 8:38 AM, DontTazeMeBro said:

Myles Garrett tried. No one appreciated it.

I would add to all of these responses that, while they may not all articulate it this way, most players realize that it's not really in any of their interests to set a precedent of meting out extrajudicial punishment to "bad people," particularly when there's no universal, objective definition for that. Maybe your question starts with sadistic animal abusers, but what about wife beaters? And if wife beaters, what about philanderers? And tax cheats? etc. 

I'd add even a step further... and this was the rarest of examples that occurred where a player with enough skill/notoriety/reputation (I preferred that later term to "eliteness" or "greatness") was actually the one carrying out the perceived vigilantism.

The plain reality of what the biggest deterrent among the layman players is that, unlike the stars, most of these guys are pulling down the kind of scratch that stars are - and the stars arguably are not even immune to being held CIVILLY LIABLE... and that stars have a bigger bullseye on their backs because the money they're pulling down.  So, the OP's contention is that a player shouldn't have an issue risk his current job, his employment viability (because he'd still carry enough of a negative PR stigma to be unemployable for the "media circus" in 99% of owners' eyes), and his own accumulated wealth to get back at someone who did something which - frankly in pretty much every single case - didn't affect them directly?

Sorry, but this is such a non-serious question it's kind of insulting to the general intelligence of the site that it was discussed for 3 pages.

[TheKillerNacho]

Intending to injure someone makes you a bad person yourself, tbh.

[AngusMcFife]

Does "intending to injury" include knocking a guy out (giving a concussion)? 

Because 15-20 years ago it was pretty much understood among defensive players that you want to knock out WRs and RBs whenever you get the chance. It was part of the culture of defenses.  

[SkippyX]

Since 1973 at least 186 people who have been given the death penalty sentence have been exonerated. Who decides the evil part on a football field?

Listen to the Serial Podcast and ask yourself if you would execute Adnan after.

Hey Jay, show us on the map where you two were... (no reply)... tap tap tap on the map... oh yeah, we were near the park!

[jjab360]

Let's start off with the fact that intentionally injuring a person is illegal?

[incognito_man]

4 hours ago, SkippyX said:

Since 1973 at least 186 people who have been given the death penalty sentence have been exonerated. Who decides the evil part on a football field?

Listen to the Serial Podcast and ask yourself if you would execute Adnan after.

Hey Jay, show us on the map where you two were... (no reply)... tap tap tap on the map... oh yeah, we were near the park!

although capital punishment is wrong, Adnan is still guilty.

[43M]

[PossibleCabbage]

I mean the simple reason is that if you get perceived as a dirty player, guys on the other team are going to cheap shot you whether or not you feel justified in your actions.

[Buc Ball]

Because everyone is trying to earn a living from the sport and by deliberately trying to injure someone, you’d very quickly be hit in the pocket by the league.

It’s also very difficult to do without it being very obvious and/or risking not doing your job properly and affecting your team’s chances of winning the game.

[Matts4313]

12 hours ago, Dr LBC said:

Sorry, but this is such a non-serious question it's kind of insulting to the general intelligence of the site that it was discussed for 3 pages.

Counter point: the NFL is technically sports entertainment and if Marvel has taught us anything, its that we are a sucker for vigilante justice. 

[TheKillerNacho]

17 hours ago, JonStark said:

The aspect of calling someone a bad person for going after bad people.

Are you being serious right now? Vigilantism being bad should be virtually undebatable.

If due process and reasonable punishment mean nothing to you, what are you even doing in this country? These are fundamental rights granted to us in the Constitution.

[Superman(DH23)]

17 hours ago, JonStark said:

The aspect of calling someone a bad person for going after bad people.

Each case is different but if someone does something legitimately evil, I have no problem seeing them pay for it. 

Who decides what is legitimately evil?  Everyone is the hero of their own story.  What you perceive as evil others may perceive as not.  For instance, you think people taking the law in their own hands is good, I do not, I would in fact consider that evil.  Should I dox you and impose my own "justice" on you? If we learn anything from the lessons of the last decade+, I hope we learn this, mob justice is not justice, vigilante justice is not justice.  There is no justice without due process of law.  Cain Velazquez is sitting in jail right now bc he decided to take matters in his own hands ( and if you took a poll you would find at least 50% would say it was justified) and in the process injured someone else.  Remember the age old adage, a man seeking vengeance should dig 2 graves.