Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1
I highly doubt Vick is innocent but I don't like the notion that we convict someone before he's convicted in court (civil and criminal). It would set an unbelievable precedence to have people convicted by their employer merely for being indicted/investigate.
No doubt, your employer will want you out if you're under suspicion for a criminal act but they don't terminate you right there and then. You reach an agreement and part company amicably.
Sure, they can fire you at will but the truth is there is no such thing when you know your rights. If you're unjustly terminated you have recourse through the court system. Bob, meet my lawyer. His name is John Payme and he likes to get paid and so do I Bob.
|
If the NFL suspended Vick, it wouldn't mean that they had "convicted" him of anything. It wouldn't reflect their opinion of his guilt, and it wouldn't have ANYTHING to do with the charges. It would have EVERYTHING to do with the fact that they don't want players with countless dead dogs buried in their backyard, 50 dogs tied to car axles in the back yard, bloody carpet, etc in the league. It isn't good for business.
It's simple: if you're an asshole, your employer could fire you. If you smell bad, your employer could fire you. If you engage in unethical behavior, or are suspected of such behavior, your employer could fire you. I believe every employer has that right, and I don't think there is a single thing wrong with it.
Another thing: so much of this is based on
physical evidence -- not some witness that could be wrong or have an axe to grind. It is clear that Vick owned property where this evidence was found -- he is not disputing that. His only defense is that he didn't know, and that is a totally weak argument.