PDA

View Full Version : Do you think Big Ben gets suspended?


DBroncos4life
03-22-2010, 05:09 PM
ORLANDO, Fla. -- NFL commissioner Roger Goodell says he plans to meet with Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger about the star's off-field problems.

Goodell already has spoken with team owners about Roethlisberger, who is being investigated on allegations he assaulted a 20-year-old college student in a Georgia nightclub on March 5. Roethlisberger's attorney says the quarterback committed no crime. Roethlisberger has yet to be interviewed by police in Milledgeville, Ga., and charges have not been filed.

"We take this issue very seriously," Goodell said Monday at the NFL meetings. "I am concerned that Ben continues to put himself in this position.

"I spoke with the Steelers and [team president] Art Rooney about it and, at some point, I will be meeting with Ben at the appropriate time."

Roethlisberger also is being sued by a woman who claims he raped her in 2008 at a Lake Tahoe hotel. He denies those allegations and has asked for counter-damages.

His latest alleged incident came during a 28th birthday party for Roethlisberger, who has a home about 30 miles from Milledgeville.

The two-time Super Bowl champ's lawyer, Ed Garland, said he has hired his own investigative team.

Rooney has said the Steelers are "in a situation we're going to let this investigation play out and then go from there."

Roethlisberger skipped voluntary workouts with the team last week.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5018837

Dagmar
03-22-2010, 05:44 PM
If he's a scumbag rapist I hope he gets plenty of jail time.

OBF1
03-22-2010, 05:48 PM
The guy has not even been charged with a crime.... How in the world can he be suspended. Lets get real and talk Bronco football, I am sure there is much more discussion on important topics like Hillis and Jay Cutler.

DBroncos4life
03-22-2010, 05:51 PM
If he's a scumbag rapist I hope he gets plenty of jail time.
Guilty or not I think he has to be suspended. He had pretty much two girls accuse him of the same thing less then a year apart.

mr007
03-22-2010, 05:53 PM
Guilty or not I think he has to be suspended. He had pretty much two girls accuse him of the same thing less then a year apart.

How do you figure? When has someone ever been suspended based on an accusation?

He hasn't been arrested and he doesn't have a criminal history. I don't see it happening.

DBroncos4life
03-22-2010, 05:53 PM
The guy has not even been charged with a crime.... How in the world can he be suspended. Lets get real and talk Bronco football, I am sure there is much more discussion on important topics like Hillis and Jay Cutler.

Hasn't there been players suspended without being convicted of a crime?

DBroncos4life
03-22-2010, 05:57 PM
How do you figure? When has someone ever been suspended based on an accusation?

He hasn't been arrested and he doesn't have a criminal history. I don't see it happening.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3643240

• Hotel scuffle
Where: Dallas
When: October 2008
What: Jones was involved in an alcohol-related incident with a bodyguard assigned to him by the Cowboys, and hotel employees called police. No arrests were made, nor were there charges filed. But the NFL suspended Jones for at least four games because the incident was a violation of the league's personal conduct policy.

gunns
03-22-2010, 06:00 PM
I also don't believe he had been convicted of anything yet when he was initially suspended. I think it came out that Goodell was looking at the situations and it seems to me Ben keeps putting himself in undesireable situations.

Garcia Bronco
03-22-2010, 06:14 PM
Guilty or not I think he has to be suspended. He had pretty much two girls accuse him of the same thing less then a year apart.

Acusations are not guilt.

Archer81
03-22-2010, 06:20 PM
Acusations are not guilt.


He keeps putting himself in situations where he can be accused. His conduct, regardless if he is charged or not can be viewed as detrimental to the steelers and the NFL.

:Broncos:

Rabb
03-22-2010, 06:30 PM
The guy has not even been charged with a crime.... How in the world can he be suspended. Lets get real and talk Bronco football, I am sure there is much more discussion on important topics like Hillis and Jay Cutler.

do we really have to have this argument over and over and over again whenever someone gets in trouble?

I am not picking on you specifically, but Jesus Christ on a lollipop...it is getting old

Garcia Bronco
03-22-2010, 06:51 PM
He keeps putting himself in situations where he can be accused. His conduct, regardless if he is charged or not can be viewed as detrimental to the steelers and the NFL.

:Broncos:

Doesn't matter. He's not been charged nor convicted.

Remember the Duke Lacrosse Team? Talk about egg on the face for an entire pompas-assed university. There is no rush. If he's guilty then he'll get the business. At least that's how it should be, but Mike Vick was suspended before he ever went to trial or was indicted. The facts in that senario were much more clear.

Archer81
03-22-2010, 07:07 PM
Doesn't matter. He's not been charged nor convicted.

Remember the Duke Lacrosse Team? Talk about egg on the face for an entire pompas-assed university. There is no rush. If he's guilty then he'll get the business. At least that's how it should be, but Mike Vick was suspended before he ever went to trial or was indicted. The facts in that senario were much more clear.


Considering the focus Goodell places on personal conduct and being representative of the NFL, Rothlisberger can expect something. If nothing happens to Ben, then he should consider himself lucky and may want to reconsider where he hangs out and with who. The fact two cases within 14 months of each other in two spots Rothlisberger was present sets a pattern of behavior and sends a red flag that even if Ben did not assault these girls, he is placing himself in a **** position where he can be exploited by people who know who he is.

It should be a concern that the Georgia police are taking their time with this. If nothing happened this could be wrapped up by now.

The Duke Lacrosse case was a typical response by the media to paint "pampered white athletes" as university sponsored neanderthals. The facts didnt matter in that case, it was going to be a witch hunt because a black woman alleged gang rape by white athletes.

Mike Vick...honestly he should not be in the NFL. I feel the same way about Leonard Little and even that WR from Cleveland who hit and killed a man. These men should not be playing in the NFL. It does not seem right to me that they killed people or slaughtered animals and continue to play a game for a living. If Rothlisberger raped/assaulted these women, he should be banned as well. Not suspended, but permanently banned.

:Broncos:

Donk
03-22-2010, 08:10 PM
Considering the focus Goodell places on personal conduct and being representative of the NFL, Rothlisberger can expect something. If nothing happens to Ben, then he should consider himself lucky and may want to reconsider where he hangs out and with who. The fact two cases within 14 months of each other in two spots Rothlisberger was present sets a pattern of behavior and sends a red flag that even if Ben did not assault these girls, he is placing himself in a **** position where he can be exploited by people who know who he is.

It should be a concern that the Georgia police are taking their time with this. If nothing happened this could be wrapped up by now.

The Duke Lacrosse case was a typical response by the media to paint "pampered white athletes" as university sponsored neanderthals. The facts didnt matter in that case, it was going to be a witch hunt because a black woman alleged gang rape by white athletes.

Mike Vick...honestly he should not be in the NFL. I feel the same way about Leonard Little and even that WR from Cleveland who hit and killed a man. These men should not be playing in the NFL. It does not seem right to me that they killed people or slaughtered animals and continue to play a game for a living. If Rothlisberger raped/assaulted these women, he should be banned as well. Not suspended, but permanently banned.

:Broncos:

Should Woods be permanently banned?

Archer81
03-22-2010, 08:19 PM
Should Woods be permanently banned?


Marital infidelity is not murder or rape or animal slaughter. So no.


:Broncos:

Dagmar
03-22-2010, 08:26 PM
Should Woods be permanently banned?

Don't be retarded. He cheated on his wife with another adult.

Ben has been accused of rape twice in a year.

I cannot believe you are equating the two.

MaloCS
03-22-2010, 09:34 PM
Kick his ass out! Where there's smoke there's fire.

bronco militia
03-22-2010, 09:37 PM
The guy has not even been charged with a crime.... How in the world can he be suspended. Lets get real and talk Bronco football, I am sure there is much more discussion on important topics like Hillis and Jay Cutler.

that hasn't stopped goodell from suspending players.....welcome to the new nfl....IMO, it's really starting to blow

Bronco Boy
03-22-2010, 10:07 PM
He's a member of the God Squad. So, yeah he's not getting suspended.

no-pseudo-fan
03-23-2010, 07:49 AM
Brandon Marshall got suspended for being in the news for domestic violence, he was never convicted of it, but the number of run ins were enough to cause the league to sit him down.

Ben has been in the news for sexual assault, a far worse crime, twice. The league needs to do the same with him, or it will open a box they will not be able to close very easily. The NFLPA is looking for something to beat the league and the owners over the head with.

NFLPA can claim racism and bias, and that would not be a pretty road to travel down.

mr007
03-23-2010, 10:36 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3643240

• Hotel scuffle
Where: Dallas
When: October 2008
What: Jones was involved in an alcohol-related incident with a bodyguard assigned to him by the Cowboys, and hotel employees called police. No arrests were made, nor were there charges filed. But the NFL suspended Jones for at least four games because the incident was a violation of the league's personal conduct policy.

He had prior history. End of story, he was already on an extremely thin leash by the league and this was after his year suspension.....

mr007
03-23-2010, 10:37 AM
Brandon Marshall got suspended for being in the news for domestic violence, he was never convicted of it, but the number of run ins were enough to cause the league to sit him down.

Ben has been in the news for sexual assault, a far worse crime, twice. The league needs to do the same with him, or it will open a box they will not be able to close very easily. The NFLPA is looking for something to beat the league and the owners over the head with.

NFLPA can claim racism and bias, and that would not be a pretty road to travel down.

BM also had been arrested multiple times, had a DUI, and was on an already thin leash. Again, the 2 don't match... Ben has never had any sort of run-ins with the law or been arrested that I'm aware of.

MaloCS
03-23-2010, 10:44 AM
BM also had been arrested multiple times, had a DUI, and was on an already thin leash. Again, the 2 don't match... Ben has never had any sort of run-ins with the law or been arrested that I'm aware of.

Doesn't matter. A person of his standing should have a better head on his shoulders. I can give the guy a break if this situation only happened once. Hell, the argument that a gold digging female was out for a payday can be made. But... this is the second incident for the same exact offense. Where there's smoke there's fire.

Hopefully, a suspension for Ben would teach the guy that he needs to settle down and start acting like a mature adult. There are plenty of players in the league that go out, throw down some brewskis and party like it's 1999 that have never been accused of sexual assault. Why is Ben finding himself in this situation so frequently? The question needs to be asked.

Suspend the guy for 2 games, minimum.

Man-Goblin
03-23-2010, 11:52 AM
Need more info.

If actual charges are filed, they should, and probably will, suspend him immediately and indefinitely. But until then, I don't think they'll suspend him simply because he's a douche.

DBroncos4life
03-23-2010, 12:07 PM
He had prior history. End of story, he was already on an extremely thin leash by the league and this was after his year suspension.....

I guess Big Ben's prior history of sexual assault should be over looked then right?

Tombstone RJ
03-23-2010, 12:19 PM
I wonder if Ben equates riding a lady like riding a motorcycle... a crash is just inevitable...

Beantown Bronco
03-23-2010, 12:22 PM
I wonder if Ben equates riding a lady like riding a motorcycle... a crash is just inevitable...

And wearing protection is unnecessary.

DBroncos4life
03-23-2010, 12:32 PM
• It doesn't take a psychic to foresee a potential league suspension looming for Pittsburgh quarterback Ben Roethlisberger, no matter the outcome of the investigation into him allegedly sexually assaulting a 20-year-old woman in Milledgeville, Ga.

In his first public comments on Roethlisberger's legal issues, Goodell said he planned to meet with the face of the Steelers franchise, and he didn't mince words about reserving judgment until the matter has worked its way through the legal system.

"First, I think the most important thing is we take the issue very seriously,'' Goodell said. "We are concerned that Ben continues to put himself in this position. I have spoken to the Steelers. I have spoken to [team owner] Art Rooney directly about it. And at the appropriate time I will be meeting with Ben.''

The key word in that paragraph? "Continues.'' As in Goodell now sees a pattern of behavior from Roethlisberger, who was also sued last year by a Nevada woman who alleged he raped her in 2008. It's that pattern that could prompt Goodell to hand out a suspension that would sideline Roethlisberger for part of the 2010 season, even if no charges are ever filed against Big Ben.

Both Rooney and Steelers head coach Mike Tomlin have admitted having concerns about Roethlisberger in recent days, but Goodell's message was a bit different. It was as much a warning as any expression of concern.


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/don_banks/03/22/snaps/1.html#ixzz0j1FNaCHr

mr007
03-23-2010, 03:17 PM
I guess Big Ben's prior history of sexual assault should be over looked then right?

When was Ben ever arrested?

Jones was arrested on charged of assault and vandalism in 2005, wasn't making contact with his probation officer, arrested again in 2006 with more probation granted, cited for assault AGAIN in 2006 and then required to go to court for obstruction of justice and marijuana possession.

2007 you have the whole shooting case where he was charged some more and then the drug dealing crap. Actually there's a whole slew of more incidents with Jones that is just too much to write about.

Ben has been accused of doing something twice. He has not been arrested, convicted, or granted probation with anything. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but the fact is Ben hasn't been in trouble with the law and doesn't have a history of sexual assault, only a history of sexual assault allegations.

If something can be proven, absolutely he should be suspended and thrown in jail. If not, the 2nd allegation could possibly be someone trying to exploit the fact that there was a first allegation. I would doubt that's the case, but it's definitely possible.

mr007
03-23-2010, 03:20 PM
Doesn't matter. A person of his standing should have a better head on his shoulders. I can give the guy a break if this situation only happened once. Hell, the argument that a gold digging female was out for a payday can be made. But... this is the second incident for the same exact offense. Where there's smoke there's fire.

Hopefully, a suspension for Ben would teach the guy that he needs to settle down and start acting like a mature adult. There are plenty of players in the league that go out, throw down some brewskis and party like it's 1999 that have never been accused of sexual assault. Why is Ben finding himself in this situation so frequently? The question needs to be asked.

Suspend the guy for 2 games, minimum.

How can you possibly do that based on allegations? If Ben settles out of court, for sure. If he's taking it to court and counter suing (which he has now done in both instances), there's no way.

If he's innocent on both accounts, there is no way in hell he should be suspended. Where there's smoke there's fire is a ridiculous analogy.

DBroncos4life
03-23-2010, 03:38 PM
When was Ben ever arrested?

Jones was arrested on charged of assault and vandalism in 2005, wasn't making contact with his probation officer, arrested again in 2006 with more probation granted, cited for assault AGAIN in 2006 and then required to go to court for obstruction of justice and marijuana possession.

2007 you have the whole shooting case where he was charged some more and then the drug dealing crap. Actually there's a whole slew of more incidents with Jones that is just too much to write about.

Ben has been accused of doing something twice. He has not been arrested, convicted, or granted probation with anything. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but the fact is Ben hasn't been in trouble with the law and doesn't have a history of sexual assault, only a history of sexual assault allegations.

If something can be proven, absolutely he should be suspended and thrown in jail. If not, the 2nd allegation could possibly be someone trying to exploit the fact that there was a first allegation. I would doubt that's the case, but it's definitely possible.

Almost in every involvement with Jones either no charges where ever filed or charges got dropped. I believe he got suspended because he kept finding himself in these types of places in the first place. Same goes for Ben.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3643240

There is the list of what Jones did, what he was charged with, and what was dropped.

Tombstone RJ
03-23-2010, 04:50 PM
Either Ben's showing a pattern of being with women who are confused about sexual intimacy, or Ben gets all flustered and befuddled at times and just flat out messes things up in a bad way... either way, I'm thinking love potion #9 doesn't always work the way it should...

mr007
03-23-2010, 05:18 PM
Almost in every involvement with Jones either no charges where ever filed or charges got dropped. I believe he got suspended because he kept finding himself in these types of places in the first place. Same goes for Ben.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3643240

There is the list of what Jones did, what he was charged with, and what was dropped.

Jones has been given probation multiple times from the courts and charges have been dropped based on meeting probation. This means, it was found he did some of those things, and based on meeting a certain criteria, the charge would be dropped. That's not the case with Ben. Many of the incidents with Jones could be PROVEN and were admitted to. Just because the charge was dropped doesn't mean it didn't take place and an acknowledgment wasn't there, quite different from Ben.

I have no idea how you can compare the two in your mind...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Jones_%28American_football%29

Caligula
03-23-2010, 06:02 PM
If he (Ben) doesn't even get charged... no he doesn't get suspended. As of right now, he hasn't even been indicted.

But I think if Ben does get indicted, then I think he gets suspended.

DBroncos4life
04-21-2010, 01:39 PM
6 games was even more then I saw coming.

rastaman
04-21-2010, 02:12 PM
Considering the focus Goodell places on personal conduct and being representative of the NFL, Rothlisberger can expect something. If nothing happens to Ben, then he should consider himself lucky and may want to reconsider where he hangs out and with who. The fact two cases within 14 months of each other in two spots Rothlisberger was present sets a pattern of behavior and sends a red flag that even if Ben did not assault these girls, he is placing himself in a **** position where he can be exploited by people who know who he is.

It should be a concern that the Georgia police are taking their time with this. If nothing happened this could be wrapped up by now.

The Duke Lacrosse case was a typical response by the media to paint "pampered white athletes" as university sponsored neanderthals. The facts didnt matter in that case, it was going to be a witch hunt because a black woman alleged gang rape by white athletes.

Mike Vick...honestly he should not be in the NFL. I feel the same way about Leonard Little and even that WR from Cleveland who hit and killed a man. These men should not be playing in the NFL. It does not seem right to me that they killed people or slaughtered animals and continue to play a game for a living. If Rothlisberger raped/assaulted these women, he should be banned as well. Not suspended, but permanently banned.

:Broncos:

Here's an artical and countrer argurment for those folks who want to put a moral spin or argument about Ben Rothlisberger.

Ben Roethlisberger: Guilty of Sin Does Not Mean He Broke the Law

March 17th, 2010 by Nick Signorelli

I know I said that I was done writing about this until the evidence actually came out. I believe this needs to be looked at from a different angle, though, because I believe the situation is getting looked at by a lot of people in the wrong way.

For starters, I have to say that this view is based on morality. If you are someone that is opposed to reading about moral issues, or someone that takes offense to biblical references, then please stop reading now.

These are the facts the we currently KNOW.

Ben Roethlisberger, while at his home in Georgia, was out for his birthday, celebrating with friends. Willie Colon was a part of the group, as were two Pittsburgh Police officers. There was a rumor on profootballtalk.com, that the party was billed as Ben-a-palooza.

At some point of the night, Ben was approached by a young lady. The lady had been drinking prior to joining Roethlisberger. Roethlisberger, according to the policemen he was with, never bought the girl a drink.

No one has stated how long the young woman was with Ben prior to them deciding to go to the bathroom, but that, at some point, the two decided that they would go to the bathroom together.

Ben instructed two of his security men to block the door to the restroom, which they did.

According to reports, the officers that were with Ben were not drinking. According to the lawyer of Willie Colon, he has no idea of what happened.

At this point, these are the only FACTS that we know.

In the article by Todd Flemming, the comments are varied between support for Ben, and others that are opposed to him. Some say he needs to be released by the team. Some say he should be kicked out of football.

First off, no one, other than Ben and the accuser, have any idea as to what happened in that bathroom. She has not talked to the media. Ben has hardly talked to the media. And the investigators have not released any information. No charges have been filed.

These are the facts of the case.

To those people that have already said that Roethlisberger is guilty of a crime, shame on you. You have become the jury, and have made your decision without the benefit of any evidence.

For those of you that believe Roethlisberger is guilty of sin, you are dead on. However, Ben is not the only one that is guilty of sinning, so is his accuser.

Not knowing how drunk either person was at the time, some people are quick to say that they were sinning by drinking. In Luke 2, Jesus turns water to wine at a wedding, at the request of His mother, Mary. We cannot condemn either for that, due to the fact we don't know how drunk they were.

Due to security cameras, (I believe the club had 70) had Ben forced his accuser into the bathroom, I believe he would be in jail already. That means that the two of them consented to—AT LEAST—going into the bathroom together.

Matthew 5:28 states (In Jesus' words), "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Jesus also clearly states, in Matthew 7:1 that WE are not to judge. (2) "For with what judgement you judge, you will be judged; and with what measure you use, it will be measured back to you."

This means, that if you are willing to say that Roethlisberger is guilty simply because he is accused, then you too should be judged without the benefit of hearing any evidence. It also means that just because someone accuses you of something, regardless of your guilt or innocence, then you are guilty.

In a nutshell, what I am saying is:

If you choose to not be a fan of Roethlisberger due to the fact that he has committed sin, that is your prerogative. You have every right to like who you choose, and not like who you choose. Just remember, we are judged by the means that we judge.

If you believe he is guilty of breaking the law, simply because of accusations, then you are doing a disservice to the legal system, Ben Roethlisberger, the Pittsburgh Steelers, and the NFL.

Here in America, we are ALL guaranteed the right to a trial by jury. We are supposed to be presumed as innocent until proven guilty beyond any REASONABLE doubt by a jury of our peers.

For those of you that already believe he is guilty, just pray that you are never in the same situation that Mr. Roethlisberger is right now. How would you feel if you did not commit a crime, and no one believed you?

Archer81
04-21-2010, 02:39 PM
?


The question of the OP was do you think Ben would get suspended.

Guess what giggles, he did.

Shove any counter argument you might struggle to come up with, I dont want to hear you do a knob job on another POS player.

:Broncos:

Kaylore
04-21-2010, 02:40 PM
BABronco, BFDD, briane, Centella Cajon, COBronco 69, crush17, Donk, GloomyWeather, Great McBronco16, hades, Hartley, Iron Clady, KevinJames, LRtagger, NFLBRONCO, Pseudofool, Ray_Lewis'_Victim, ScottXray, Shoemaker, sisterhellfyre, STBumpkin, tsiguy96, TwinCitiesBronco, you guys were wrong.

Ha ha.

theAPAOps5
04-21-2010, 02:51 PM
I was right!

Tombstone RJ
04-21-2010, 03:02 PM
Here's an artical and countrer argurment for those folks who want to put a moral spin or argument about Ben Rothlisberger.

Ben Roethlisberger: Guilty of Sin Does Not Mean He Broke the Law

March 17th, 2010 by Nick Signorelli

I know I said that I was done writing about this until the evidence actually came out. I believe this needs to be looked at from a different angle, though, because I believe the situation is getting looked at by a lot of people in the wrong way.

For starters, I have to say that this view is based on morality. If you are someone that is opposed to reading about moral issues, or someone that takes offense to biblical references, then please stop reading now.

These are the facts the we currently KNOW.

Ben Roethlisberger, while at his home in Georgia, was out for his birthday, celebrating with friends. Willie Colon was a part of the group, as were two Pittsburgh Police officers. There was a rumor on profootballtalk.com, that the party was billed as Ben-a-palooza.

At some point of the night, Ben was approached by a young lady. The lady had been drinking prior to joining Roethlisberger. Roethlisberger, according to the policemen he was with, never bought the girl a drink.

No one has stated how long the young woman was with Ben prior to them deciding to go to the bathroom, but that, at some point, the two decided that they would go to the bathroom together.

Ben instructed two of his security men to block the door to the restroom, which they did.

According to reports, the officers that were with Ben were not drinking. According to the lawyer of Willie Colon, he has no idea of what happened.

At this point, these are the only FACTS that we know.

In the article by Todd Flemming, the comments are varied between support for Ben, and others that are opposed to him. Some say he needs to be released by the team. Some say he should be kicked out of football.

First off, no one, other than Ben and the accuser, have any idea as to what happened in that bathroom. She has not talked to the media. Ben has hardly talked to the media. And the investigators have not released any information. No charges have been filed.

These are the facts of the case.

To those people that have already said that Roethlisberger is guilty of a crime, shame on you. You have become the jury, and have made your decision without the benefit of any evidence.

For those of you that believe Roethlisberger is guilty of sin, you are dead on. However, Ben is not the only one that is guilty of sinning, so is his accuser.

Not knowing how drunk either person was at the time, some people are quick to say that they were sinning by drinking. In Luke 2, Jesus turns water to wine at a wedding, at the request of His mother, Mary. We cannot condemn either for that, due to the fact we don't know how drunk they were.

Due to security cameras, (I believe the club had 70) had Ben forced his accuser into the bathroom, I believe he would be in jail already. That means that the two of them consented to—AT LEAST—going into the bathroom together.

Matthew 5:28 states (In Jesus' words), "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Jesus also clearly states, in Matthew 7:1 that WE are not to judge. (2) "For with what judgement you judge, you will be judged; and with what measure you use, it will be measured back to you."

This means, that if you are willing to say that Roethlisberger is guilty simply because he is accused, then you too should be judged without the benefit of hearing any evidence. It also means that just because someone accuses you of something, regardless of your guilt or innocence, then you are guilty.

In a nutshell, what I am saying is:

If you choose to not be a fan of Roethlisberger due to the fact that he has committed sin, that is your prerogative. You have every right to like who you choose, and not like who you choose. Just remember, we are judged by the means that we judge.

If you believe he is guilty of breaking the law, simply because of accusations, then you are doing a disservice to the legal system, Ben Roethlisberger, the Pittsburgh Steelers, and the NFL.

Here in America, we are ALL guaranteed the right to a trial by jury. We are supposed to be presumed as innocent until proven guilty beyond any REASONABLE doubt by a jury of our peers.

For those of you that already believe he is guilty, just pray that you are never in the same situation that Mr. Roethlisberger is right now. How would you feel if you did not commit a crime, and no one believed you?

Being a Christian myself (and admittedly, a flawed one with many of my posts where I cuss and argue and don't show many posters the respect I should) I have to say that Mathew 7:1 is one of the most misunderstood passages in the New Testament.

Yes, Jesus is saying that people need to be careful when judging because no one is perfect. In other words, don't judge too harshly or too quickly because you are not perfect yourself. Jesus also said "First remove the plank from your own eye before you point out a splinter in someone elses eye."

In other words, we can judge others, but with the understanding that we too have major flaws. It's hypocritical to cast a stone if you are not perfect. That being said, we do have the right to judge others, but we have to keep it in perspective and we have to keep it within the parameters of the Bible.

Bronco Yoda
04-21-2010, 03:13 PM
Didn't another young lady recently also just accuse him last week of exposing himself to her.

I would have guessed a 4 games suspension taking him the the off week. 6 games is longer than I'd guessed but I'm all for it. The guy is lucky he isn't in jail. Any of us here.... and we'd be seing jail time for sure.

TheReverend
04-21-2010, 03:14 PM
I just voted "no" right now, take that poll!

Beantown Bronco
04-21-2010, 03:23 PM
The guy is lucky he isn't in jail. Any of us here.... and we'd be seing jail time for sure.

Tough to see jail time when no criminal charges are brought.

gyldenlove
04-21-2010, 03:26 PM
6 games most likely reduced to 4, he will surely appeal and get to have a say, I am guessing it ends up being 3 or 4 games but definitely 4 game checks.