On the halftime show, all the analysts were against it, although one said that the dead player's mother said the Cowboys should support Brent. Boomer Esiason came out strongly against it, said it was a disgrace.
Now, during the game, announcers at the stadium, (different from the halftime analysts), proceeded to praise the Pittsburgh quarterback, Ben Roethlisberger. They praised his toughness, they praised his athleticism, (he did make one great play, extending his time to pass to 9 seconds), they praised his ability to throw defenses off by double-pumping the ball. All during the game.
Let's take a look at what Joshua Brent did. He got drunk and went in a car with his friend, got into an accident which killed the friend. Terrible consequences, but he did not intend to harm his friend. You can make the case that he made a terrible choice driving over the alcohol limit, but he did not intentionally do anything to harm anyone.
Ben Roethlisberger goes into a bar, has a college girl drink so much she barely knows where she is, (this takes some time), sets up his buddies to prevent anyone from getting to the bathroom where he takes the near unconscious girl, and has sex with her. This was not one bad decision, this was a program put in place that lasted an hour or so to execute.
We can debate back and forth about which is worse-the illegal and foolish but unintentional act which resulted in a fatal accident versus the intentional rape with lasting consequences, but I think we will all agree both were incredibly bad acts.
Am I the only one who thinks that Roethlisberger's and Brent's act were somewhat in the same league of badness? If I'm right in concluding that, does anyone have an idea why the difference in treatment for the two players?
Edited by kelticwizard, 17 December 2012 - 01:13 AM.