Chiefs Release Kareem Hunt Following TMZ Video

Yes, they rightly don't take him seriously because of something somebody else did. Am I to take your comment seriously?

Also, none of them are going to be huge distractions as backups. Bradford's only notable for getting injured a lot, Bortles is notable for sucking, and Hoyer is a career marginal starter (I call him that because he's basically better than most backups, but not as good as most starters, so he ends up bouncing around the league as a stopgap for teams that don't have a decent starter).

...and then there's Mark Sanchez...

I really wanted to see the Redskins take a shot at Kaepernick just to watch political heads on both sides of the aisle explode.

More serioiusly, I don't see why he's not even getting a tryout. Josh Johnson is now starting for the Redskins!

Cody Kessler!!

I agree with cythammer and MaineRaider, your point actually reinforces it. If the criminal justice system, which as cythammer states is the formal mechanism that exists precisely to implement public policy against violence, does not regard certain misconduct as sufficiently bad to warrant sanction, why should the NFL (or the NFL teams) second-guess the outcomes? To "protect the shield?" That is THE #1 myth that Roger Goodell and his supporters in the media have promulgated, to almost universal acceptance. As far as I can tell, it's not yet based on avoiding actual adverse market reaction to person who commit violence playing football -- as another poster noted, hear many complaints about Tyreek Hill lately? Rather, it's designed to perpetuate a myth that just because one is a good football player (or actor or engineer or politician or whatever), one must also be a Good Person In Every Respect. Thats not true (see, e.g., Ty Cobb or OJ Simpson) and in my humble opinion it is long past the time to reject the proposition. "Protect the shield" also is designed to advance what Roger Goodell craves: power. As I read the record, Roger Goodell likes disciplining persons, for violence or anything else. The purpose of power is power. Even as Goodell takes PR hits from time to time, he's won on this big picture -- and nobody realizes it. Every time a sportswriter writes that a particular punishment is too low, Goodell wins, because it expands the scope of his punitive powers.

Other questions that have troubled me, and I do not claim to know all the answers, are below. Many apply to other professional sports, or even beyond:

* If as MaineRaider states there are shortcomings of the criminal justice system (a legitimate point), it the NFL's job to remedy them? If so, why?
* Would the effort spent on how NFL players are disciplined by the NFL for violence be more effective if addressed to improving how the criminal justice system addresses violence, such as in the jurisdictions in which it is not treated sufficiently seriously?
* As Hunt's case apparently shows, any organization that does not have subpoena and other law enforcement powers of the government (or a civil litigant, to a lesser extent) will be hampered in discovering the facts. Isn't it better to leave investigation to the experts? Why should an institution subject itself to criticism (as the NFL gets every time) for not doing a good job when it lacks the tools to do a good job?
* As there are many ways an NFL player can violate the law (e.g., Mychal Kendricks), does the NFL have to set up a table of violations and associated punishments? Doesn't that already exist in the criminal justice system?
* What constraints should be should be put on a person's ability to earn a living, and in what circumstances? In my opinion, there can be legitimate reasons to bar a violator from a profession, position or occupation, but they are related to the nature of the offense and/or the public nature of the profession, position or occupation under the logic, "we wouldn't want a person who has done X to be in a position where doing X again in the course of his or her job will lead to bad outcomes, especially for vulnerable persons or the public at large." Examples: a person who lies or abuses trust can and often should be barred from practicing as a lawyer; a person who inflicts violence on children can and should be barred from a large set of occupations that involve working with children; in most states, persons who have violated public policy at the level of felony cannot vote; etc. In this scheme of things, where does playing professional football fit, and where does committing violence fit? Professional football players do not protect the public weal or work with clients, students or youth; they compete against other professional football players. Perhaps one can say that violence is part of the occupation, so guarding against an NFL player using violence in an inappropriate context is important.
* Related point: should the context of a person's behavior and life, and the severity of the violation, matter in assessing the appropriate sanction for a violation (as they do in criminal sentencing)?
* . Related point: should we consider the consequences of barring a person from a profession, position or occupation? For the overwhelming most part, the United States is a capitalist society in which persons are expected to earn money to acquire the necessities of survival. Accepting that, does barring someone from a profession, position or occupation present special consequences when he or she is highly competent in that profession, position or occupation? And does barrier someone help or hinder that person in making whatever changes are necessary to make sure the person does not commit the violation again, which surely is a worthy goal?
* Related point: are human beings incorrigible? If a person commits one transgression, is that dispositive and should the person forever be sanctioned -- here, talking about playing professional football? I'm sure if one thinks about it, one can come up with a list of athletes who committed transgressions early in their careers or lives but did not later.
* Some of the prior points, put in more concrete terms: was Janelle Rice well served by what happened to Ray Rice? That's not what she thought, from what I can tell.

Exactly. That is how I read their statement. They cut him for lying to their face about the incident, not for the incident itself.