OT - NFL to possibly hire tattoo experts
So, it appears that former and/or current members of the OSU football program have another career field to consider. I'm sure they can provide some unique insight. (Either that or they should really be worried...)
Link: http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/nfl-teams-may-hire-tattoo-experts-in…
Blood in, blood out, bro.
Vatos locos forever!
15 + years of gang prosecution. spanish speaker. i know the code....
Glad to see Oakland was proactive on this issue by hiring Terrelle Pryor!
Interestingly, the symbol for the Gangster's Disciples in Chicago is a 6-pointed star. So, what if one of these Buckeye 'experts' thought someone was in the GDs, but they were actually Jewish? Highly improbable, yes, but something to consider nonetheless. Don't ask me why I know these things. I'm embarrassed about all of the hours i've spent watching gang documentaries on the history channel
If someone cares deeply enough about their Judiac faith, they probably wouldn't get a Star of David tattooed on their person.
I wish I had enough points to up-vote your comment. An excellent point.
I guess there goes my shot of playing in the NFL. Thanks a lot, Aaron Hernandez!
As much as I'd like for the NFL to clean up their image, I don't see how this is going to do anything but cause problems.
so, if you are forgive me. But I don't see how evaluation of tattoos is racial profiling. Its honestly, in my world, consultant work. An organization that wants to know more about a topic is hiring someone to consult them on said topic. Who says that the color of your skin is a driver of the tattoos you wear?
does having a policy to look into the meaning of tattoos racial profiling? I didn't know tattoos were restricted to only one specific race. Do you know which one? I might have some friends who are in big trouble!!!
but I don't see how the first and fourth amendments apply to the NFL, a private entity. There might be some employment law issues, but as a non-governmental entity I don't believe the NFL can "violate" the first amendment no matter what they do.
You can totally walk into your job with a swastika t-shirt, keep drugs in your desk drawer without anyone ever peeking inside, and tell your boss to go fuck himself whenever he asks you to perform a task. They can't fire you.
/BillOfRights'd
+1 Informative.
Think the NBA Players Association will try to add these clauses into the next collective bargaining agreement? They already have the the "drugs in desk drawer" clause.
You can totally walk into your job with a swastika t-shirt, keep drugs in your desk drawer without anyone ever peeking inside, and tell your boss to go fuck himself whenever he asks you to perform a task. They can't fire you.
/Right to work state'd
all races have gangs. the more hardcore gangs, regardless of race, will have tats and those tats communicate things. I did one guy for a quadruple homicide and part of my evidence was that he had a tat of an "RIP {favorite homeboy name here}" on his arm, that homeboy having been taken out by their most bitter rival gang.
boatloads of info in tats, i mean boatloads.
Not only is it basically racial profiling,Isn't it a little racist to assume that only people of a certain skin color get tattoos?
No, not really, but if all the legal experts on the blog keep this up we are going to have to start paying him.
...paying him a consulting fee.
See what I did there?
However, the perceptions of tattoos and possible gang activity permeates the NFL culture, despite what the tattoos actually are. Cam Newton was told not to get tattoos. Colin Kaepernick was prematurely judged for his. Terrelle Pryor is a numbskull, but he isn't a gangster. I don't see how this can pass muster, because a tattoo is not necessarily an indication of gang activity, and vice-versus.
Private corporations make their own rules but they aren't necessarily exempt from Constitutional law. In cases of age discrimination, the NFL has lost lawsuits. Can it be argued that there is a such thing as tattoo discrimination? Legally, there is no basis for that, but tattoos are obtained for many reasons and individuals with them may not appreciate having their private lives and backgrounds examined based on their personal ink choices.
Like I said, I just don't see this ending well. I'll consult with a practicing lawyer in my department.
And I see your point, however respectfully disagree. I think the difference is in the way the NFL operates and how they interview potential draftees. Its basically a job interview. There are a number of ways those who have tattoos can hide their meaning to uneducated observers. The point most are trying to make is that the race, sex, religion of a potential player is independent of their motivations to have a tattoo in the first place. I'm sure the tattoo itself is not the discriminator, its the underlying lifestyle or personal choices that surrond the meanings behind the tattoo.
And keep in mind, they're not using this information to fire anyone...they're using it as a discriminator of whether or not they want to hire them.
for helping make a good academic discussion out of a post that was orginally intended to just make fun of ohio state.
I'm pretty sure both of the amendments you cited apply to the government, but not necessarily to privately-run companies. You can be fired for looking unprofessional in the workplace. You just can't be thrown in jail for it.
As has been pointed out, this most likely stems from the Hernandez thing, but has anyone actually said that Hernandez has tattoos that indicate gang affiliation? This is a serious question, not a rhetorical one. I'm geniunely curious.
as far as I can see. He has a tattoo on his right hand that reads "Bloods" and one of his known associations is with a gang called the Bristol Bloods. So, although not blatant, his tattoos could be a link. I hear its being investigated.
and thanks for your support.
/jackass.