ROR Impaired Driving Charges Dismissed

[dudacek]

My girls used to idolize Chz until they found out she was actually an obese male trucker.

Now one is a PA fan, it's that grandfatherly thing he's got going.

The other likes Pi just to piss off her dad.

[SDS]

Honestly I'm not. If that's the crux of your argument it's flawed IMO

 

Anyone else care to answer that one?

Eh. Because one became well known for playing with a ball and the other because he lived a life whose words and deeds were worth emulating? It's not that hard.

[...]

MLK was not even entertaining. He was all, like, serious and no fun. He was religious, too...who wants to look up to that?

 

Now, Mike Tyson...heth a role model. Yeth indeedy.

[North Buffalo]

Because athletes aren't role models, they're entertainers. Your child doesn't know them, they are complete strangers, and if a professional athletes actions can influence your child's behavior/actions than yeah, you've failed as a parent. Take responsibility and parent your own kids.

Role models are overblown... but when a favorite player does something stupid i think they let us down and dissapoint. That being said, the media likes to portray them as wholesome... good for advertising. Reality and where parenting comes in, althletes have special skills but are often fallible maybe more so then the general public. Their skill is so extraordinary, their weaknesses are often overlooked until they cant be. Hence so many public crash and burns. I teach my kids admire the skill, but judge the human being separately.... great skill, but a real ahole person... Edited July 12, 2016 by North Buffalo

[That Aud Smell]

The idea of public figures being role models is a canard, in my book.

 

Kids are a product of their nurture and nature -- I won't hazard a guess as to the ratio between the two. As for the nurturing, that's the stuff that comes from people they know and see. They may aspire to the accomplishments of public figures, but, as a rule, their moral behaviours are not being formed or affected by what those public figures do.

 

I'm sure there are exceptions to this rule. Kids who don't get nurtured will tend to have a vacuum where other forces can enter. But, as a rule? Yeah. Neither MLK's philandering, John Lennon's woman beating, or Ryan O'Reilly's drunk driving amount to a hill of beans when it comes to those young folks who admire(d) those people.

[darksabre]

The idea of public figures being role models is a canard, in my book.

 

Kids are a product of their nurture and nature -- I won't hazard a guess as to the ratio between the two. As for the nurturing, that's the stuff that comes from people they know and see. They may aspire to the accomplishments of public figures, but, as a rule, their moral behaviours are not being formed or affected by what those public figures do.

 

I'm sure there are exceptions to this rule. Kids who don't get nurtured will tend to have a vacuum where other forces can enter. But, as a rule? Yeah. Neither MLK's philandering, John Lennon's woman beating, or Ryan O'Reilly's drunk driving amount to a hill of beans when it comes to those young folks who admire(d) those people.

+1

[WildCard]

Eh. Because one became well known for playing with a ball and the other because he lived a life whose words and deeds were worth emulating? It's not that hard.

So how they got famous matters? LeBron does a million things for charity, so does Curtis Grandserson, but because I know them from sports I shouldn't look up to them?

Edited July 12, 2016 by WildCard

[akm]

Suggesting that having a child who looks up to professional athletes is a by-product of poor parenting is an incredibly dumb hot take.

 

There are many professional athletes across all sports who well and truly epitomize the kinds of values that many parents find admirable:

 

Hard work

Dedication

Focus under pressure

Team work

Strong communication skills

Charitable

Etc. etc. etc.

 

No person is perfect, and dealing with imperfection and adversity is also an important behavior to model for children. I'd rather have my kids look up to certain athletes than many of the other types of "entertainers" that are in the public eye, that's for sure.

[LTS]

Really? And here I was thinking I was the official spokesperson of the Canadian judicial system...

 

I guess I just have a low tolerance level for people who drink and drive and have the money/status to get away with it. I'm not sure of everyone else's background, but if it was my car that crashed into Tim Horton's, I'm pretty sure I would still be in jail.

 

I don't have a high tolerance level for people who do that either. But as was stated, lots of people don't actually get a DUI when charged with one.

 

I don't think they are supposed to be role models.  But I think the reality is that they often are.

 

They can't control who looks up to them but they don't have to change the way they act because of it. They are not somehow bound by greater responsibility just because someone might idolize them.

 

That said, you can idolize a persons athletic ability without admiring their non-athletic aspects. I'd dare say that most kids look up to a sports figure not because of who they are off the court/field/ice but because of what they do when they are on it. In that way they are not really idolizing the athlete themselves but in reality are idolizing the display of athletic ability.

[Eleven]

Because it's a game, a game that kids play, so they naturally look up to them. 

 

Kids play music, too.

[Stoner]

Hank's point is stated a bit strongly, but the essence of it seems right to me.

 

Moreover, I'll venture to say that well raised kids may be disappointed to learn that their favourite sports figures have made bad choices, but such kids won't have their behaviour influenced thereby.

Instead of framing it in the negative, what about the positive that could have come from O'Reilly doing the right thing and confessing guilt, taking his lumps? Does that move your needle at all? Also, I don't want to overstate the influence of one athlete doing one thing. It's more of a drip drip drip when kids see untold numbers of adults acting in their own self-interest instead of doing the right thing. You can't say that's not also how kids learn about the world. How powerful can it be when someone goes against that grain? (And what of the idea that acting in your own self-interest is always the no-brainer. Where would that have left the lady who was shot in Dallas and her kids?)

 

My girls used to idolize Chz until they found out she was actually an obese male trucker.

Now one is a PA fan, it's that grandfatherly thing he's got going.

The other likes Pi just to piss off her dad.

Is this for real? I have a fan?

Edited July 12, 2016 by PASabreFan

[That Aud Smell]

Instead of framing it in the negative, what about the positive that could have come from O'Reilly doing the right thing and confessing guilt, taking his lumps? Does that move your needle at all? Also, I don't want to overstate the influence of one athlete doing one thing. It's more of a drip drip drip when kids see untold numbers of adults acting in their own self-interest instead of doing the right thing. You can't say that's not also how kids learn about the world. How powerful can it be when someone goes against that grain? (And what of the idea that acting in your own self-interest is always the no-brainer. Where would that have left the lady who was shot in Dallas and her kids?)

 

I love it when you try to move my needle.

 

Ha. Anyway, I don't think that changes things much for me. Someone else posted it - maybe in the E. Kane thread? - to the effect that the young 'uns are largely ignorant of this brand of ugly news. The overwhelming majority of attention paid to this sort of news comes from the adults who are wringing their hands of what those kids will make of it (when, in fact, they are making nothing of it at all).

 

But maybe I'm the one who's being a bit naive about the sort of information and news that kids get nowadays. The kids I raise and the other kids I know don't generally get into this sort of stuff. But maybe there are 1000s of kids across Canada who are keenly aware of what ROR did here?

 

Anyway. I remain fairly steadfast in my thoughts on who's nurturing those kids and influencing their behaviours.

 

But I would be interested to know what % of Canadian kids (limit it to hockey players? club athletes of any kind?) -- say, between the ages of 8 and 14 -- are aware of ROR being charged with a DUI when his truck backed into a Tim Hortons.

[Thorner]

I don't think they are supposed to be role models.  But I think the reality is that they often are.

But while it would be admirable for ROR to take it upon himself to mould his actions in a way that furthered his perceived status as a role model, it is not his responsibly to do so. He only has a responsibility to the law, nothing further.

 

It is ok for children to look up to athletes due to some of the qualities they do exemplify, ie, hard work, dedication, etc, but it is the duty of the parent to explain to their kids that athletes are human beings who make mistakes, just like anyone else, and to not project their personal ideals and values unto said athletes and expect them to uphold them. One needs to draw the line between what athletes are promoting on the physical, athletic level, and separate that from who they are on a personal level. Too often athletes are depicted to be infallible, above normal human failings individuals, and are expected to be held to some higher standard. They are entertainers.

 

Though as said, I think most kids are able to make the distinction.

 

What's the difference other than that they don't know them?

  

 

Eh. Because one became well known for playing with a ball and the other because he lived a life whose words and deeds were worth emulating? It's not that hard.

Right. A political figure like MLK is in the limelight because he is promoting a set of ideals and values, athletes are in the spotlight, generally, physical gifts (and yes, hard work). One is in the business of promoting values to live by, the other entertainment.

 

Obviously figures like MLK or whoever can have their failings as well. The important thing is for "people on tv" to never be portrayed as somehow above everyday human failings. But the often are. If is the duty of loved-ones to explain this to growing minds.

[Weave]

I think a couple of you guys that quoted me think I was saying something more than what the words there say.  I replied to a specific comment about whether these guys are role models or not.

 

I have no opinion at all on whether they should be, or act like they are.  I was merely stating what I believe reality to be.

[Thorner]

I think a couple of you guys that quoted me think I was saying something more than what the words there say.  I replied to a specific comment about whether these guys are role models or not.

 

I have no opinion at all on whether they should be, or act like they are.  I was merely stating what I believe reality to be.

I did get that. Was just using your comment as a springboard for my thoughts. Should have specified. What you said was a fact.

[Doohicksie]

Antics.

[bob_sauve28]

I see the Bills rookie RB got a DUI and his agent told him not to take the breathilizer test. I wonder if that's good advice 

[SDS]

I see the Bills rookie RB got a DUI and his agent told him not to take the breathilizer test. I wonder if that's good advice

Eh. This should probably go elsewhere.

[Drunkard]

I see the Bills rookie RB got a DUI and his agent told him not to take the breathilizer test. I wonder if that's good advice 

 

Never take the breathalyzer unless you are 100% sure you will pass it.

[darksabre]

Never take the breathalyzer unless you are 100% sure you will pass it.

Yup. When in doubt, refuse the breathalyzer and a blood test. You're not required to incriminate yourself.

[inkman]

Yup. When in doubt, refuse the breathalyzer and a blood test. You're not required to incriminate yourself.

Not everyone can afford to lose their licence for a year.

[darksabre]

Not everyone can afford to lose their licence for a year.

If you blow you could lose it longer, no? 

[ubkev]

If you blow you could lose it longer, no?

I'm not up on the current law or any law for that matter, but my understanding is that back in 2006ish NY adopted Aggravated DWI for those who blew double the legal limit and that would cost you your license for a year, plus you'd have a harder time getting it reduced to a DWAI which is a traffic infraction and not a "crime". Don't blow = license gone for a year, but conditional license generally granted for driving to work and school and Dr appointments.*

 

 

 

 

*I'm not a lawyer and I could very well be talking out my ass. This may all be wrong.

Edited July 16, 2016 by ubkev

[TrueBlueGED]

I'm not up on the current law or any law for that matter, but my understanding is that back in 2006ish NY adopted Aggravated DWI for those who blew double the legal limit and that would cost you your license for a year, plus you'd have a harder time getting it reduced to a DWI which is a traffic infraction and not a "crime". Don't blow = license gone for a year, but conditional license generally granted for driving to work and school and Dr appointments.*

 

 

 

 

*I'm not a lawyer and I could very well be talking out my ass. This may all be wrong.

 

Don't be so pessimistic, you could be talking out your ass and still manage to be correct :)

[Rasmus_]

Hopefully this helps his case if there is a suspension pending by the NHL after their investigation.  Losing two top six forwards for any length of time is never good.  Especially when ROR, led all forwards in ice time and in the top 5 in face off's.